[Senate Hearing 109-322]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-322
UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING REFORM
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 27, 2005
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
26-641 PDF WASHINGTON : 2006
___________________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire BILL NELSON, Florida
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
Kenneth A. Myers, Jr., Staff Director
Antony J. Blinken, Democratic Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
AND TERRORISM
JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire, Chairman
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio BILL NELSON, Florida
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Dibble, Philo L., Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of
International Organization Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC................................................. 15
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Response to question submitted by Senator Sununu............. 24
Lute, Jane Holl, Assistant Secretary General for Peacekeeping
Operations, United Nations, New York, NY....................... 6
Sununu, Hon. John E., U.S. Senator from New Hampshire............ 1
Zeid Al-Hussein, His Royal Highness Prince Zeid Ra'ad, Permanent
Representative of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, United
Nations, New York, NY.......................................... 3
(iii)
UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING REFORM
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International
Operations and Terrorism,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John E.
Sununu (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senator Sununu.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. SUNUNU, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
HAMPSHIRE
Senator Sununu. This afternoon it is my pleasure as
chairman of the International Operations and Terrorism
Subcommittee to be hosting a combined briefing and hearing on
U.N. peacekeeping reform. In doing so I wish to acknowledge,
with thanks, the support of Chairman Lugar, who has been a
great champion of comprehensive U.N. reform and who hosted a
complementary hearing on U.N. reform, including peacekeeping
reform, on July 21.
This session is intended to follow up on that hearing and,
in particular, we are pleased that we have three very
distinguished officials that have agreed to brief or testify,
respectively, before the subcommittee. I look forward to
hearing their views on how we can make U.N. peacekeeping more
efficient, more effective, and more faithful to the U.N.'s
founding ideals and the challenges in the modern world.
The expectations that are placed on U.N. peacekeepers have
grown tremendously over the past 6 decades and the United
Nations, as well its member states, have sometimes had a
difficult time adapting to these new and challenging times.
Perhaps the biggest changes have come in the last decade and a
half since the end of the cold war. As the recently released
report on the congressionally mandated task force on U.N.
reform notes, between 1948 and 1990 the United Nations
initiated some 18 peacekeeping operations, but between 1990 and
today, the Security Council, with the support of the United
States, has initiated more than 40 peacekeeping operations.
That alone is an indication of the challenges that are faced by
those that have supported peacekeeping operations through the
United Nations.
The task force report, which former House Speaker Newt
Gingrich and Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell chaired,
goes on to state: ``As of late March 2005, there were nearly
70,000 international military and policy forces serving in 17
different U.N. peacekeeping missions.''
It is not just a matter of the number of operations; it is
their complexity. In many cases we are asking peacekeepers to
intervene in the wake of devastating civil wars or to take part
and support the rebuilding of significant portions of society.
Peacekeeping is the U.N. system's biggest single budget
item. The approved budget for the period ending June 30, 2005,
stood at nearly $4 billion and is likely to rise significantly
for 2005 and 2006. The total assessment on U.N. members for
peacekeeping is well in excess of the separate assessment for
the U.N. regular budget.
Not surprisingly, peacekeeping reform is not a new topic.
One of the most important milestones in peacekeeping reform was
the 2000 report of the panel on U.N. peace operations which
Secretary General Kofi Annan commissioned. The so-called
Brahimi Report offered several dozen recommendations to
strengthen management of peacekeeping operations. It went a
long way, as the Secretary General notes in his own U.N. reform
report on March 2005, ``In Larger Freedom,'' working toward
restoring member-state confidence in peacekeeping.
Nevertheless, it did not address all of the problems, as
persistent reports of sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N.
peacekeeping personnel have made clear.
In July 2004 Secretary General Annan asked the respected
Permanent Representative of Jordan, His Royal Highness Prince
Zeid, a former civilian peacekeeper himself, and the Ambassador
of one of the major U.N. troop-contributing countries, to act
as his adviser in assessing this scandal. The Secretary General
subsequently asked Prince Zeid to prepare a comprehensive
report for the U.N. Special Committee on Peacekeeping
Operations. Issued March 2005, the report sets forth findings
and recommendations under four broad categories: Rules and
standards of conduct; the investigative process;
organizational, managerial, and command responsibility; and
finally, individual disciplinary, financial, and criminal
accountability.
The U.N. General Assembly endorsed the Zeid report last
month and I am delighted that his Highness has been permitted
to brief the subcommittee on his report and look forward to
hearing his views on the key challenges facing the
implementation of these recommendations.
As the Gingrich-Mitchell report also noted, the Secretary
General's ``In Larger Freedom'' report and the December 2004
report of the High-Level Panel on Threats, Challenges, and
Change make clear the misconduct of certain peacekeepers is
only one of the impediments U.N. peacekeeping needs to
overcome. The Gingrich and Mitchell report identify five
additional areas.
First on their list is doctrine, planning, and strategic
guidance for mission deployment. They cite, as an example, the
lack of guidance provided to U.N. peacekeepers in Haiti.
Second, they list rapid deployment, by which they refer to
enhancement of standby forces and prepositioned stocks able to
respond quickly in the event of a crisis.
Third, they note the absence of developed country
involvement, to include the United States, in blue-helmeted
operations.
Fourth, information analysis and early warning. U.N.
peacekeepers need real-time information if they are to be
successful in the modern field.
Fifth, Gingrich and Mitchell enumerate headquarters
staffing and funding for peacekeeping operations.
The High Level Panel also highlighted the issue of
resources. One of the solutions it proposed was to create a
small standing corps of senior police of 50 to 100 personnel to
organize the startup of peace operations.
I have invited U.N. Assistant Secretary General for
Peacekeeping, Jane Holl Lute, who has a distinguished record
and prior career with the U.S. Army, on the National Security
Council, and in the nonprofit sector, to be our second briefer.
Again, I express my appreciation to her superiors in New York
for permitting her to address the subcommittee and I am eager
to hear her views as one of the leaders of the U.N.'s
peacekeeping operations and on the many challenges that lie
ahead.
Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International
Organization Affairs, Philo Dibble, will appear on the second
panel as a witness. He is a member of the senior foreign
service and brings considerable expertise, in particular in the
Middle East, which has seen a large share of U.N. peacekeeping
operations over the year, and he will offer a useful U.S.
Government perspective on our discussion today on the issue of
sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N. peacekeepers, but also on
a range of other peacekeeping issues. In addition, I would
welcome comments on the specific provisions regarding
peacekeeping and the pending U.N. reform legislation, including
the Coleman-Lugar bill and the Hyde bill, which Senator Smith
has introduced on the Senate side.
Before I close, I would like to stress the crucial
contributions that U.N. peacekeeping operations have made to
U.S. national interests. The plain truth is that we cannot and
do not want to be the world's policeman, but we have a great
interest in preventing the collapse of states, which would then
provide sanctuaries to our enemies. U.N. peacekeepers have been
successful in the past in helping states to make the transition
to peace and security. None of these operations are ever
authorized without our concurrence as a member of the--as a
permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, and my hope is
that the reforms we are discussing today will help strengthen
the U.N.'s role as a force multiplier and pave the way for a
more secure world.
Again, I want to thank our briefers and our witness today,
and with that turn over the microphone, first, to His Royal
Highness Prince Zeid. Thank you very much for being here. You
are welcome to summarize or provide any written testimony you
have and introduce anything you might like for the record.
Thank you and welcome.
STATEMENT OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS PRINCE ZEID RA'AD ZEID AL-
HUSSEIN, PERMANENT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HASHEMITE KINGDOM OF
JORDAN, UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Zeid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, with your
permission of course, I would like to express my gratitude to
you for your words of welcome and for the kind remarks you
addressed to me. It is, of course, a pleasure for us to be
here, to be able to brief the subcommittee on the developments
on this particular issue and the issue of sexual exploitation
and abuse in U.N. peacekeeping operations because, quite
simply, without the attention and the concern of the United
States, there is only so much that we can accomplish in the
context of the United Nations. So it is something that we very
much would welcome.
I think it is worthwhile starting off by making the rather
obvious remark that where we deal with abuses or misconduct by
U.N. personnel it is obvious that the United Nations, as an
international organization, cannot exercise sovereign
jurisdiction or has no sovereign power. Any abuse committed, or
alleged to have been committed, can only, ultimately, be
treated by the member states, and if abuses are not
investigated in a judicial sense and then subsequent judicial
proceedings are not forthcoming, this is not the fault of the
United Nations, but it is, of course, the fault of the member
states.
By and large, our record in this area has not been a record
worthy of admiration. We, in many cases, have fallen short of
fulfilling our sense of responsibility, accountability to the
victims of those personnel that we send to the field to work
and serve with the United Nations. We need, urgently, to
address this issue.
The two broad areas where we felt--we felt are deficient
and required treatment, are in the first instances the
investigations that are carried out by the United Nations and,
subsequently, then by the member states themselves; and in the
second area, the treatment of a category of personnel, that is
civilian personnel, who may not fall under the jurisdiction of
any country that is capable of exercising that jurisdiction,
and I will get to those two points shortly.
In the area of investigations, it was quite clear that the
United Nations was, and still is, responsible for examining the
initial evidence as a means of discerning whether there have
been breaches, breaches of U.N. rules and regulations. And it
was clear that in handing over the evidence that was collected
in the initial stages to member states there was a problem. The
problem resided in two areas.
One is that the boards of inquiry that, in the past were
put together to examine evidence, were not staffed by
professionals. These were people who were not quite aware of
how rules of procedure and evidence would work in a national
context and were not people who knew what was admissible
evidence in the national context from what evidence was not
admissible. So it was clear we needed to make adjustments here.
The second area was in the field of forensics. We realized
that the United Nations, for many years, did not employ modern
methods of identifying perpetrators of various crimes, amongst
which are, of course, the sexual offenses, and here we needed
to change the manner by which things were being done.
Now, the report was put together at the beginning of the
year and when the discussions first began on the report, which
we entitled a comprehensive strategy for the treatment of this
particular issue, the General Assembly took the decision or
reaffirmed its decision that the Office of Internal Oversight
Service would be primarily responsible for the conduct of
investigations.
It was clear to us that we, then, had to triangulate a
relationship between the Office of Internal Oversight, which
hitherto had no real presence in the field--no real fixed
presence--with the Department of Peacekeeping Operations,
which, of course, does have a presence in the field, and then
also tie that in with the responsibilities of member states in
following up what initial investigations were conducted by the
United Nations.
It was also very apparent to us that where military
personnel are concerned, any investigation had to involve the
member states. I think most militaries across the globe are
averse to having other entities investigate their personnel in
an exclusive manner and what we had to strive for was some sort
of joint investigation, whereby the United Nations, and the
member state concerned, would look at the material and then
decide whether there was material sufficient for subsequent
legal or judicial steps to be taken.
Of course I will allow Jane to speak on this because I
think we have achieved a considerable amount in this area, and
discussions between the Department of Peacekeeping Operations
and the Office of Internal Oversight Services are continuing,
and at the same time the memorandum of understanding, which
governs the relationship between the troop-contributing
countries and the United Nations, is also now being amended and
will subsequently, I think next week, be made available to all
member states for comments.
So, on the military side, I think we see some very good
developments. On the civilian side, this is much more of a
vexing problem, as I alluded to earlier, simply because you
could have a situation where there is a civilian staff member
working for the United Nations who is alleged to have committed
a serious crime, let us say, in the case of sexual abuse, let
us say a rape. Of course, what normally would happen is that
the host country, the country where the operation is taking
place, would exercise jurisdiction. Well, it goes without
saying that in many of these countries there is no judiciary
worth speaking of.
So what then can you do? Well then, you can turn to the
country whose national is being accused and you see whether
that country can exercise jurisdiction over this particular
criminal act alleged to have been committed. And if that
country, itself, cannot exercise jurisdiction, because not all
countries can exercise jurisdiction extraterritorially, then
you have a problem, because what you have is a U.N. official
who, in effect, has impunity. No one is able to prosecute that
individual.
These are very complex legal issues and for that reason we
suggested the setting up of a group of experts--a legal group
of experts--and that now is being done. The experts themselves
will be contacted any day now. We hope they will meet quite
soon. We are looking at financing for that group and in due
course the General Assembly will, of course, have time to
review what proposals are being presented by this expert group
and then take a decision.
So, in overall terms, I am quite confident that we are on
the right track. This is a very difficult problem. We will
encounter more allegations in the field as we improve the
mechanisms for eliciting complaints. That is without any doubt.
And after 60 years of relative neglect--and this is not just
speaking about sexual exploitation and abuse, but the wide
range of misconduct--and I have to be clear here that we are
speaking about misconduct being committed by personnel from
every corner of the globe. There is no single country or groups
of countries who are particularly culpable where these issues
are concerned.
Returning to my original point, it is incumbent upon us,
the member states, to ultimately ensure that we see that
justice is done and also not to interfere, in the manner by
which the United Nations also goes about doing its work, in a
way that will complicate the justice that ought to be done to
the victims of this sort of abuse.
I thank you for giving me this opportunity, Mr. Chairman,
and I would be willing to answer any questions that you may
have. Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much.
Ms. Lute.
STATEMENT OF JANE HOLL LUTE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL FOR
PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS, UNITED NATIONS, NEW YORK, NY
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, on behalf of
the Secretary General and the Under Secretary for Peacekeeping,
for giving us the opportunity to meet with you. We value very
much an open dialog on the full scope and range of peacekeeping
issues as we reach what we believe to be a major pivot point in
understanding and applying U.N. peacekeeping in the world
today.
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to
express the very deep gratitude of the Department of
Peacekeeping Operations to Prince Zeid for the work that he did
on behalf of the Secretary General and his personal commitment
to following through on an agenda that is necessary and
complex, but very essential for us as we move toward a more
effective and powerful instrument on behalf of the member
states.
I would like to elaborate, Mr. Chairman, if you agree, on
some of the measures that we have undertaken in the Department
to respond to the findings of Prince Zeid in his report and to
put these in the context of how the Department approaches its
work as we look at some new concepts, such as the concept of
peacebuilding and applying all of the energies of the
international community to address conflict-ridden
circumstances.
First, let me give you, Mr. Chairman, a brief picture of
where we are. In the past 18 months there have been a total of
186 substantiated allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse.
This has resulted in 7 civilians being dismissed, 2
reprimanded, and 10 referred for additional disciplinary
action. Two police have been repatriated and two additional
cases of policemen are under review; 78 military, including 6
commanders, have been repatriated. Nepal, South Africa,
Morocco, Pakistan, and others have taken decisive action
against their contingent members who have been validated to
have committed acts of sexual exploitation and abuse, and we,
in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, welcome this
conviction by the member states of their commitment to
upholding the highest standards of performance.
We have undertaken a number of initiatives, Mr. Chairman,
in the area of prevention, in the area of enforcement, and in
the area of remediation to address this. We want to be able to
assure the member states of the United Nations that they can
move from a position of, perhaps, constant surprise at what has
happened in the field to constant vigilance, that we have a
handle on this problem and we will maintain that vigilance to
deal with this problem in its fullest sense.
In the first instance, in the area of prevention, we are
promulgating common standards that will apply to all civilians
and military serving in peacekeeping missions. We have had
separate sets of standards before. We have moved to, and the
General Assembly has approved, the applicability of a common
set of standards applicable to all peacekeeping personnel.
We have redoubled our efforts in education and training
through the standard training modules that member states and
troop contributors and civilians receive prior to their
deployment to a peacekeeping mission and refreshed--what will
be refreshed on an annual basis while they are in missions.
This education and training addresses the specific issues of
sexual exploitation and abuse, but also addresses broader
cultural issues and broader gender awareness issues, the
special vulnerabilities of children in conflict, et cetera, to
be a total framed presentation of the issues in an education
and training format.
We have a focus on individual and leadership
responsibility. So while we have promulgated these standards,
we are emphasizing the responsibility that individuals have in
upholding these standards and we are also emphasizing the
special responsibilities expected of leaders and managers as
well. We will promulgate an extensive set of policy directives
on minimum measures that missions will take regarding this
issue. We have focused on senior leadership with training, with
briefings, and with follow-on--follow-on programs to ensure
that they understand their responsibilities in this regard.
We have asked the Office of Internal Oversight for a
comprehensive audit of discipline in all of our peacekeeping
missions in order to understand fully the context within which
these acts can occur. They have concluded their audit. We have
had an ongoing dialog with them about the findings and about
the remedial measures we will take to address the issues that
they have raised.
We have a communications strategy, Mr. Chairman. One that
explains more clearly to the populations we serve the role of
peacekeepers, but also one that speaks to us, ourselves, to
remind us why we serve, to remind us of the duty of care that
we owe the populations that we serve, and to remind us of the
special privilege that it is to serve as a U.N. peacekeeper.
There are also other measures as well, Mr. Chairman, that
missions are taking on an individual basis, for example,
requiring soldiers in contingents to wear uniforms at all times
within the mission area and other measures as well.
With the TCCs, the troop-contributing countries, as Prince
Zeid has outlined, we have been in dialog with them on the
training and education emphasis and also on refining our
memoranda of understanding with them regarding what can be
expected with respect to their units deploying to peacekeepers
in the field. We have also been in active dialog with them in
following up when soldiers have been repatriated for sexual
exploitation and abuse activity to know what has happened to
these soldiers, to be able to use that for the deterrent value
that it has, and also to address this issue of zero tolerance
and to give meaning to the phrase ``zero tolerance.'' It is a
phrase that for many has lost its meaning, but we are
invigorating that phrase with a very concrete--with very
concrete dimensions. ``Zero tolerance'' in effect, Mr.
Chairman, to us means zero complacency, zero impunity. We will
not be complacent in the face of clearly validated allegations
of sexual exploitation and abuse and we will not let
individuals commit these kinds of acts with impunity. I am
pleased to say, Mr. Chairman, that we are getting the
cooperation of the troop-contributing countries in following up
when this has occurred.
On the enforcement side, as Prince Zeid mentioned, we are
doing a lot of work in improving and strengthening our
investigative capacity. This responsibility has primarily been
given to the Office of Internal Oversight, but it is a large
job. They do not have enough resources to do all that needs
doing. So we are working with them to ensure that crimes or
acts of this type do not slip away or fall under the weight of
other work and other priorities.
We are compiling a database to represent a comprehensive
understanding of individuals that have been again demonstrated
to have committed these acts, so that we can ensure that they
are not rehired in some other part of the U.N. system. We are
creating, in eight of our missions, personal conduct and
discipline units to assist the mission leadership in monitoring
the good order and discipline in the mission area and to take
action in the area of advocacy, education, training, and to
receive complaints, to help facilitate the leadership's control
in the mission area.
We are working with the member states to strengthen
criminal accountability, as Prince Zeid mentioned, Mr.
Chairman. This is particularly in the area of extraterritorial
jurisdiction for civilians who have committed crimes in host
nations where the judicial system cannot be relied on to
prosecute that crime itself.
We are increasing our patrols. We have off-limit areas. We
have curfews. We have a number of other mission-specific
measures that they can take.
In the area of remediation, the area of victims'
assistance, Prince Zeid mentioned this as an important concern
of ours. We have had a task force looking at all aspects of
victims' assistance to ensure that the organization meets its
responsibilities with respect to victims without losing sight
of the individual culpability when and as it is established.
We want to be a catalyst for best practice in this area. At
the moment our missions are partnering with our UNICEF and
other colleagues with NGO partners on the ground to bring first
and essential services. It is not nearly enough, Mr. Chairman,
for what victims need, but it is a start.
Why is this important? Again it is important because U.N.
peacekeeping needs to be a much more effective, much more
powerful tool in the hands of the member states as we look at
the very complex agenda, which you rightly pointed out in your
opening remarks.
Peacebuilding is one of the major initiatives--a
peacebuilding commission, I should say, is a major initiative
that is under contemplation for adoption by the member states.
What the peacebuilding commission will do, what a peacebuilding
orientation will do, is give us all a new way of looking at the
post-conflict environment. Peacebuilding is essentially an
agenda of definitive recovery from conflict.
It differs from peacekeeping in important ways. It differs
from development assistance or from humanitarian assistance in
important ways. Humanitarianism can best be thought of,
perhaps, as emergency well-being, bringing those essential
services of food, water, shelter, protection to people under
stress. Development is probably best thought of as an agenda
for sustainable self-governance, to build those capacities and
those institutions in states so that people can govern
themselves in relative peace.
Peacekeeping is best thought of as creating an environment
of transitional security. It is a temporary phenomenon in any
individual place. But as we have seen, it is a permanent need
of the international community, and it is a permanent capacity
we, in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, intend to get
very good and expert at, more so than we have in the past.
All of these pieces comprise the agenda of peacebuilding,
which is a 10- to 25-year agenda in the aftermath of a conflict
so that people can definitively recover from that conflict. We
need to weave all of these strands together.
As you rightly point out, Mr. Chairman, for peacekeeping
this means, specifically, better ability to write doctrine, to
do planning, to provide strategic guidance. In the area of
rapid deployment, we do believe we need a standing reserve
capacity in those circumstances when the rapid introduction of
a decisive military force can turn the difference between
spoilers prevailing or not. We do believe we need a standing
police capacity to bring that expertise and technical
assistance to bear in a public order environment where it is so
necessary and important. We do believe that we need an
intelligence capacity to give peacekeepers on the ground the
near-real-time battle space awareness that any commander on the
ground would want to have. And we do believe, Mr. Chairman,
that we have in place the vision, the plan, the organization,
the people, and the mindset of the leadership that would
validate the investment of resources to strengthen peacekeeping
in these ways.
I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
appear before you and I am prepared to answer any questions you
may have. Thank you.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much.
Prince Zeid, of the recommendations that you made to the
Secretary General, which do you think will be the most
difficult to implement and take the greatest amount of time or
resources to successfully implement?
Mr. Zeid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. It is
difficult to single out any one particular issue. I think
ultimately, though, if there was one that does stand slightly
above the rest in terms of the need to ensure that justice is
done--and again particularly for the victims concerned--that in
my opinion would be need for professional investigation. I
think that is where we would need resources, given the number
of allegations that you have in the field and the need to
establish early on whether there are grounds for culpability.
We need to have resources. We need to have access to
forensics capabilities. You need to have the right personnel.
You need to be on the scene as quickly as is possible. You need
to have arrangements with the host country and with the country
supplying troops or personnel. So, ultimately, I think that is,
if you were to single out one issue, that would probably be it.
But that is not to say in any way that we can diminish the
other recommendations that we also need to work on. It is, as I
said, a problem born out of many years of neglect by the member
states, the Security Council, the Secretariat to some extent,
and it is high time that we deal with this. That is not to say
that we can reverse 60 years worth of culture overnight, but I
am quite confident that we will be able to do it in 1 to 2
years, in other words implement the entire battery of
recommendations in the report.
Senator Sununu. Did you estimate the total amount of
resources necessary to achieve those improvements in the
investigative process and forensics and did you identify a
source of funding for those improvements?
Mr. Zeid. Mr. Chairman, to the extent that we only had
really a few weeks to put the report together, we could not
attack this problem comprehensively. We did informally, let us
say, we contacted informally a number of laboratories that
conduct forensic work to just arrive at some sort of figure for
how expensive all of this would be.
To our surprise, it was not as expensive as we initially
thought. It is rather astonishing that we have not thought of
all of this before. I think seldom has there been, for
instance, fingerprints--fingerprinting--conducted by the United
Nations or fiber analysis; it could be analysis of all sorts.
This is something, obviously, that has to change.
I do not know whether Jane Holl Lute would have a more
precise figure on this. I know that OIOS is looking at it as we
speak now and I am sure that in due course we will be able to
arrive at some sort of figure concerning this. Of course, it is
contingent on the number of allegations and number of cases
that we also must pursue in the field.
Thank you.
Senator Sununu. You also mentioned the establishment of a
group of experts to help with some of the evaluation of the
legal issues associated with civilian personnel, and that that
is under way right now. What is the source of funding and
financing for that group?
Mr. Zeid. That is another good question, Mr. Chairman. It
does not surprise me that it comes from an engineer as well.
The sources that we are looking at at the moment are extra-
budgetary. We are approaching, or the United Nations is
approaching, a number of member states, in particular one of
the Scandinavian countries, and we are looking at private
sources as well to fund this arrangement.
Senator Sununu. Ms. Lute, you mentioned--touched on the
issue of command and strategic guidance in the field. Could you
elaborate on that just a little bit more? To what extent has
breakdown in command, or weak command structures within the
peacekeeping missions, been identified as a contributor to some
of the problems that we are seeing and what recommendations
have been made for strengthening that guidance and the chain of
command among the missions?
Ms. Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It speaks actually to
the heart of the matter. This kind of behavior does not occur
chronically, or on a widespread basis, in an environment of
tight command and control. This is why we asked OIOS, the
Office of Investigative Oversight, to look into the state of
discipline in our missions.
We have drawn the conclusions that our leadership
environment needs strengthening both on the civilian and the
military side, that commanders and senior leaders and managers
in the mission are responsible for the state of discipline and
for the actions that do occur. Where we have found widespread
activity, we can point directly to weak commanders. But as
Prince Zeid said, Mr. Chairman, it is not the case that this is
attributable to any particular nationality or contingent. It is
attributable to a weak command and control environment, bad
habits, bad supervision, bad behavior--again, not exclusive to
the military at all. We can observe this on the civilian side.
We have also heard offerings of mitigating circumstances
which might forgive such behavior: These are difficult and
dangerous environments; staff members are under enormous
stress; they are far away from home; they are vulnerable to
solicitations for prostitution and it is a very short step from
those kinds of behaviors to other more serious acts. Frankly,
Mr. Chairman, none of those excuses wash. None of them are
things we understand. None of them are things that condone this
kind of behavior.
So we have begun to emphasize to leaders and supervisors
and commanders on the ground that we will hold them accountable
to their command responsibilities in this dimension. We have
also had a very productive dialog with troop-contributing
countries at a military level as well as a civilian level, in
New York and in capitals, frankly, Mr. Chairman, at every
opportunity, to solicit their support and commitment to
ensuring that this command standard is maintained.
Senator Sununu. Has any disciplinary action been taken with
respect to any of the field commanders under whom these
problems occurred?
Ms. Lute. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I mentioned some----
Senator Sununu. And are your powers sufficient in that
regard?
Ms. Lute. We have no power with respect to that, Mr.
Chairman. The troop-contributing countries, as you would
expect, retain the disciplinary authority over their troops and
their commanders.
We have seen disciplinary action taken. As I mentioned
earlier, six commanders have been subject to disciplinary
action in their home countries. Pakistan for example, among
others, has disciplined commanders in addition to individuals
who have been held responsible for these acts.
Senator Sununu. You mentioned in addition to those, I think
two police that have been repatriated, a number of others that
have been disciplined. In the cases where there is a
repatriation, has it uniformly been the case that there has
been what you would view as effective and reasonable
followthrough with regard to prosecution and discipline?
Ms. Lute. Not in all cases, Mr. Chairman. There has been no
single standard. As you might imagine, each nationality
reserves the right to act under its particular set of laws in
the jurisdictional context within which their military members
serve in our peacekeeping missions. So there is no uniformity.
What we have been asking the member states--and Prince
Zeid's particular efforts have been extremely helpful to us in
this regard--is that they take action once an individual has
been repatriated on proven grounds for these actions, for these
acts, and that they communicate to us the action that has been
taken, which is appropriate within their national guidelines.
Senator Sununu. Is there anything that restricts or
inhibits either of you from providing clear and effective
feedback to the member states regarding whether or not their
disciplinary action is appropriate in the eyes of the United
Nations?
Ms. Lute. That is a good question, Mr. Chairman. We would
not presume to appoint ourselves the court of appeals in
reviewing the disciplinary action that has been taken by the
member states. But we do--we have and we do and we will
continue to ask the member states what disciplinary action has
been taken, how is this consistent with your laws governing the
kinds of transgressions that we are dealing with here, and we
accept it as appropriate under the circumstances.
Senator Sununu. Is that an effective process? Is that
effective for you in your role and, while I understand you
cannot speak for the Secretary General, is there any process
under way to try to strengthen the way that this kind of
feedback is provided to member states insofar as whether or not
the disciplinary action is appropriate and is helping to make
the peacekeeping operations work more effectively, your
Highness?
Mr. Zeid. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What is absolutely clear
is that for certain cases and for technical reasons, countries
that have, on occasion in the past, been willing to follow
through with prosecutions have been unable to do so because the
evidence did not quite fit what is admissible under the
national legal system.
But there is something else and I think you allude to it in
your question, and that is that for many years many of us, the
governments, have also for political reasons or for other
reasons not followed through. One of the problems that we do
encounter with any international organization or any
international conference, for that matter, is that we are all
too willing to point a finger at others and not willing to
confess to our own shortcomings.
The United Nations is a reflection of all the defects that
exist within our own national systems. It is almost the
aggregate of that. So we have to be careful before requesting
of the United Nations to maintain a high standard of conduct
that we ourselves are willing to do likewise.
Now, of course, we need to change this culture. When I
spoke before the Security Council about a month and a half ago,
I made it very clear that I had no credibility going before the
Council unless I was clear about what violations have been
committed by Jordanian troops in peacekeeping operations, that
their conduct on occasions has been appalling, that we are very
proud of their overall conduct, but we are now alive to the
fact that we are not all saints, there are some sinners between
us, and we must deal with this.
I think if we can inspire a culture, whereby all of us, all
the member states, are willing to do likewise, are willing to
say this is not something that we should be ashamed of--of
course we should be ashamed of the conduct, but if we were not
to speak up this is even, perhaps, more shameful. So we should
not be ashamed in speaking out on this, and make reference to
our own actions and inactions.
Hopefully, in time we will be able to see a change in this
culture. Indeed, in the case of, at least, one country that
initially took a position whereby it stated that the conduct of
its troops was impeccable, under subsequent scrutiny then had
to revise its position and, to its credit, sort of confessed or
spoke out and said, no, we do have a problem and we are going
to take action on it, and they subsequently did so. So, it is
an issue that requires sort of some careful handling, I
believe.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sununu. Ms. Lute, you mentioned the zero tolerance
policy. You may have answered this in some of the numbers you
provided, but how many peacekeepers have violated that policy
this year and what types of action have been taken for those
that have violated the zero-tolerance policy?
Ms. Lute. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These were the
statistics I reviewed earlier, where we had 186----
Senator Sununu. 186.
Ms. Lute. Yes.
Senator Sununu. Basically that comprises all of the
violations of the policy, or allegations?
Ms. Lute. Mr. Chairman, these are the serious allegations
that have warranted further action. Of these were the 7
civilians I mentioned being dismissed, 2 reprimanded, 10
referred for additional action, 2 police repatriated, 2 cases
under review, 78 military repatriated, including in that case,
Mr. Chairman, 6 commanders, et cetera.
Senator Sununu. Which raises the question of tracking these
various allegations and violations of the policy. Is there a
database to identify and track violation of these policies and
who is in charge of the database and the information-gathering
and to what extent is it available to member states?
Ms. Lute. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an
important tool in our arsenal for addressing this problem, and
to date--to this point, I should say, our data collection has
been rather ad hoc and unsystematic. We have done it in an off-
line way, mission by mission and category of personnel by
category of personnel, military, experts on mission, civilian
police, civilian personnel serving.
In the Department headquarters, we have similarly taken an
off-line--that is to say nonfully automated--approach to data
collection. I chair a task force, Mr. Chairman, in the
Department of Peacekeeping Operations on dealing with the
problem of sexual exploitation and abuse. That has been a major
initiative of the task force. We have taken out of beta testing
a comprehensive database that will allow us to have a much more
sophisticated and streamlined system.
Senator Sununu. When do you expect that to be operational?
Ms. Lute. This fall, Mr. Chairman.
Just to follow through on the point, if I can supplement
what Prince Zeid said on following up with member states, we
used to follow up at the 90-day mark, the 3-month mark: What
has happened to this individual that has been repatriated? We
now follow up beginning at the 30-day mark and follow up
monthly thereafter with regularized intervals for elevating the
level at which we engage the member states for a response.
Senator Sununu. What is the current ratio of peacekeepers
in the field to headquarters staff in New York, and based on
your experience in the U.S. Army is that ratio what it should
be?
Ms. Lute. I started out as a music major, Mr. Chairman.
Math is not my long suit. We will have over 90,000 people in
the field and in the Department of Peacekeeping Operations we
have a staff of 604. There are about 190 other staff members
spread throughout various departments in New York, in the
Department of Management, in the area of procurement, in the
comptroller's office, in human resource management, in legal
services. But the Department of Peacekeeping has about 600 for
90,000 in the field. These ratios are unlike anything I have
ever seen in my military career. No national government runs a
force deployed, forward deployed, with that kind of
headquarters ratio.
Senator Sununu. Can you speak a little bit about the
readiness level of the troops that are being deployed now,
particularly with regard to the technology and the equipment
they have access to?
Ms. Lute. Thank you very much for that question, Mr.
Chairman, because we have--we do an extraordinary amount with
what are relatively smally sized operations in the field.
Troop-contributing countries now conduct, on a regular basis,
with us predeployment visits. We go to those countries to
inspect the units that will be deployed on peacekeeping
missions to evaluate their state of readiness of the soldiers,
of the vehicles, of the other equipment that is brought under
the heading of COE or contingent-owned equipment that they
bring with them into the mission area. These are fairly
recognizable standard infantry battalion kinds of equipment,
medical units which would be recognizable to any professional
military at a level one or level two standard.
The equipment and the readiness and the performance of the
units is quite extraordinary in many if not all cases. So the
readiness of the troops has been enhanced over the course of
time, because some of our regular troop-contributing countries
now have developed what might be called a battle rhythm for
deploying to peacekeeping missions.
They also, Mr. Chairman, now conduct on a much more
regularized basis reconnaissance visits to the areas in which
they will serve in peacekeeping missions. This is brand new,
believe it or not. Again, in my own military experience it is
extraordinary that a military contingent would ever deploy
without having performed, to the greatest extent possible, the
reconnaissance in the area of responsibility it will be given.
It is a relatively new innovation for us in peacekeeping, but
one that we are working very closely with the TCCs.
So, through dint of their own experience, through dint of
the elevation of the performance of professional soldiers
across the board, and through measures like predeployment
visits, predeployment training, reci or reconnaissance visits
to the areas of responsibility they will be given, we are quite
pleased with the level of performance.
Senator Sununu. What about access to real-time information
and early warning? This is one of the areas addressed by
Gingrich and Mitchell. What kinds of goals, what kind of
standards exist today, but what kind of goals and objectives do
you have for addressing that recommendation and improving
access to information and real-time data in the field?
Ms. Lute. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. It is
operationally very relevant for us because many of our missions
are in a highly charged environment where the operational tempo
is intense. Eastern Congo is an example. We do not have a
tactical intelligence capacity at all, except for what our
military observers are able to glean from their observations,
from what normal reconnaissance patrols conducted by the
various units who are forward deployed might reveal. We have no
electronic measures. We have no imagery measures. We have no
human intelligence measures other than the engagement of the
contingent with the local population to establish for
themselves the IPB or the intelligence preparation of the
battlefield.
Ours are not battlefields, Mr. Chairman, but they are
operating spaces that are increasingly complex and dangerous.
So this is a capacity that we believe we sorely need.
Senator Sununu. I want to thank you both for your testimony
and your time. You are very gracious. We will almost certainly
have a couple of additional questions that we might follow up
with in writing, and if you are able to provide additional
information to the subcommittee as an expansion on this
briefing I would appreciate it. Thank you both very much.
At this time I would like to call forward our witness,
Philo Dibble, the Acting Assistant Secretary for International
Organization Affairs at the State Department.
[Pause.]
Senator Sununu. Welcome, Mr. Dibble. Thank you very much
for being here. We are pleased that you could make the time and
I would ask you to go right ahead with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PHILO L. DIBBLE, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
BUREAU OF INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
STATE, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Dibble. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before this committee on this very important issue.
With your permission, I will offer a brief oral summary of my
testimony, but I ask that the full text be included in the
record.
Senator Sununu. Without objection.
Mr. Dibble. Mr. Chairman, in many ways peacekeeping is the
core of the mission of the United Nations. Indeed, Article 1 of
the U.N. Charter identifies the maintenance of international
peace and security as one of the organization's fundamental
purposes. During the past 15 years the Security Council has
mandated an increasing number of peacekeeping missions to help
deal with threats to international peace and security. And, as
those missions have increased in number, they have also
increased in complexity, as the previous panel has made clear.
More and more peacekeeping operations have been called upon
to deal with conflicts within states rather than between
states, and to operate in circumstances where political,
economic, social, and humanitarian concerns play roles, at
least as important as short-term stability, in determining the
success of a mission.
There are at present, 16 active U.N. peacekeeping missions
worldwide, with nearly 85,000 troops and 9,500 police
authorized. Since September 2003 alone, the United States has
supported new U.N. peacekeeping missions with current troop
levels of over 33,000 for Liberia, Burundi, Haiti, Cote
d'Ivoire, and Sudan.
We ask a great deal of U.N. peacekeepers. In few cases are
they mere monitors of an agreed cease-fire line. There are
often calls for them to be aggressive against rebels and
against irregular units, and, unfortunately, U.N. peacekeepers
themselves are increasingly the targets of hostile fire. Over
1,900 personnel in U.N. peacekeeping operations have been
killed in the course of their duty since 1948.
Clearly, however, serious problems have arisen and emerged
as peacekeeping has expanded and become more complicated. In
particular, we have received substantiated reports of sexual
abuse and exploitation by peacekeeping troops and others
associated with the missions. Such contemptible acts are
intolerable in themselves. They must be prevented and, where
prevention fails, those who commit them must be punished.
Sexual abuse by peacekeepers is also unacceptable because
of the damage it does to the reputation of the United Nations,
to that of the troop contributors, and to the basic objectives
of peacekeeping missions, even if the vast majority of
participants in those missions have conducted themselves
honorably.
We continue to press the United Nations to enforce the
policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse and exploitation by
U.N. peacekeeping and civilian staff. We have insisted that
military contingent commanders be held accountable, along with
their subordinates, and that troop-contributing countries take
action against their peacekeepers who perpetrate acts of sexual
exploitation and abuse.
To its credit, the United Nations has responded with
commendable energy. We commend, specifically, the work of the
Secretary General's special adviser, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al-
Hussein, Permanent Representative of Jordan, in crafting a
comprehensive strategy and his recommendations to eliminate
future sexual exploitation and abuse in U.N. peacekeeping
operations.
The General Assembly recently adopted resolutions endorsing
many of those recommendations, to strengthen enforcement of a
uniform U.N. Code of Conduct for peacekeepers, improve the
capacity of the United Nations to investigate allegations of
sexual exploitation and abuse, broaden assistance to victims,
and enhance predeployment training for U.N. peacekeepers.
We welcome the creation of personal conduct units within
the U.N. missions in Burundi, Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Sudan, and Haiti to address allegations
and to assist victims. We have encouraged the United Nations to
establish similar units in each of its peacekeeping missions.
We will continue to address the issue forcefully with troop
contributors and advocate at the United Nations for systemwide
reforms. Since we became aware of the problems, U.S. officials,
including the Secretary of State, have raised our concerns with
the Secretary General within the Security Council, and with
troop-contributing countries. There is, I am happy to say,
broad support for a strong response.
Looking again at the broader issues of peacekeeping, the
State Department takes its responsibilities with respect to
U.N. peacekeeping and to the Congress and to the taxpayers very
seriously. We examine and critique the recommendations of the
Secretary General on peacekeeping. We also report to, and
consult with, interested congressional committees, both
formally and informally, on a regular basis and in detail on
significant developments relating to peacekeeping. We keep U.N.
peacekeeping operations under constant review, in particular to
ensure an effective exit strategy.
I would note that circumstances sometimes require forces to
be built up in order to achieve that strategy. Once mission
goals are achieved, we seek to have missions reduced or closed.
In May the Security Council approved the termination of the
peacekeeping mission in East Timor, and in June approved
closure of the mission in Sierra Leone next December. At the
urging of the United States, the Council requested that the
Secretary General review the level of staffing in the U.N.
mission in Western Sahara, where a political stalemate has
prevented progress toward a final status resolution. After
elections scheduled for August in Burundi, it will be time to
discuss a drawdown there.
We also support the creation of a peacebuilding commission,
as the previous panel had mentioned, as an advisory body to the
Security Council, to improve policy coordination within the
U.N. system and the donor community, and to respond to the
increasingly complex, difficult nature of peacekeeping as such.
We are convinced that the United Nations can conduct
peacekeeping more efficiently and we are pursuing the details
of the structure, manning, and equipping of peacekeeping units
in the context of discussions as debated in the General
Assembly, which decides on budgetary matters.
Mr. Chairman, with that I thank you and am happy to take
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Dibble follows:]
Prepared Statement of Philo L. Dibble, Acting Assistant Secretary,
Bureau of International Organization Affairs, Department of State,
Washington, DC
Mr. Chairman, Senators, I welcome the interest of the Congress and
the opportunity to appear before you to discuss our efforts to
strengthen U.N. peacekeeping and put an end to the outrage of sexual
exploitation and abuse by certain members of U.N. missions. In May, I
testified before the House International Relations Subcommittee on
Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations on this most
serious matter.
During the past year, the establishment of U.N. peacekeeping
missions to address failed states in Liberia and Haiti, two countries
where the United States and the international community had previously
intervened to restore order, illustrated the need for broader-based,
longer-term approaches to post-conflict reconstruction and recovery. At
the same time, the recent rapid growth in the demand for U.N.
peacekeeping missions, especially in Africa, has made right-sizing and
clear-exit strategies for U.N. peacekeeping missions more crucial than
ever. Also during the past year, widespread and serious sexual abuse
and exploitation by U.N. peacekeepers of civilian populations on post-
conflict societies came to light, making clear the need for stronger
oversight, investigative and disciplinary procedures, and training to
prevent such abuse.
PEACEBUILDING COMMISSION
In order to prevent the recurrence of instability and conflict, the
United Nations has increasingly focused on designing
``multidimensional'' or ``integrated'' peacekeeping missions. In
essence, such designs include both security activities, funded under
the U.N.-assessed peacekeeping budget, and reconstruction and recovery
programs funded under voluntary contributions by member states and
regional organizations. The need for improved coordination between
assessed ``peacekeeping'' activities and voluntary ``peacebuilding''
activities has become increasingly apparent.
To address this problem, the United States supports the creation of
a Peacebuilding Commission to improve coordination of the U.N. system
and the donor community on policy and country-specific operations in
the transition from conflict to post-conflict peacebuilding. We believe
all contributions for peacebuilding activities should be voluntary
rather than assessed.
RIGHT-SIZING OF PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS
Through our participation in Security Council consideration of
mandate authorizations for peacekeeping missions, we keep those
mandates and the force levels under constant scrutiny. We have led
efforts in the Security Council in recent months to ensure timely
termination of peacekeeping missions where exit strategies have been
fulfilled, and to scrutinize the staffing levels of longstanding
peacekeeping missions. In May, the Council approved the termination of
the peacekeeping mission in East Timor, and in June approved the
termination in December of the mission in Sierra Leone. Last year, the
Council approved significant reductions in troop levels in Cyprus,
where accession to the European Union reduced the potential for renewed
conflict, and in Ethiopia/Eritrea, where a political stalemate made the
implementation of the U.N. mission's border demarcation mandate
impossible. At the urging of the United States, the Council requested
that the Secretary General review the level of staffing in MINURSO, the
mission in the Western Sahara, where political stalemate has prevented
any progress toward a final status referendum since the creation of the
mission.
In considering requests for force increases, we have carefully
weighed the justification for such requests against the costs. In June,
the Security Council approved a U.S. proposal to authorize the
temporary transfer of peacekeeping troops among three neighboring
missions in West Africa to respond to requirements for a surge capacity
when needed. This new authority is intended to afford the Secretary
General an opportunity to take into account overall force levels on a
regional basis and deploy peacekeeping capacity more efficiently.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE
In 2004, in response to media reports of cases of sexual abuse by
U.N. peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), our
mission to the United Nations pressed the Department of Peacekeeping
Operations (DPKO) to investigate these allegations and report to member
states. To address the issue, the DPKO created an ad hoc ``rapid
response'' investigation team and a task force at the headquarters of
the U.N. mission in the DRC (MONUC) in Kinshasa. This was the start of
a process that has since brought to light shocking and abhorrent sexual
exploitation practices on a significant and widespread scale in MONUC
by both civilian and military members of the peacekeeping mission.
In the eastern DRC, the sexual exploitation and abuse of women,
especially young girls, by armed militia was a horrific part of the
civil war that raged in that region prior to MONUC's arrival. Many
girls were raped and some were pregnant and without families or
financial means of support due to the stigma attached to rape. The
subsequent involvement of some U.N. peacekeepers in sexual exploitation
of some of these same victims aggravated a very sad situation.
These cases highlight the dangers young people face in post-
conflict situations. When impoverished young village children are
displaced, separated from family and friends, homeless, or unable to
provide for basic necessities they become all the more vulnerable to
force, fraud, coercion, exploitation, and abuse. Illiteracy, food
insecurity, and unemployment add to the vulnerability of these
civilians to sexual exploitation. There is a special evil in the sexual
exploitation and abuse of children, who are the most innocent victims.
President George W. Bush said, ``Those who created these victims . . .
must be severely punished.''
Mr. Chairman, MONUC has contributed greatly to stability and to
democratic transition following a civil war that produced millions of
civilian casualties. With that context in mind, it is doubly abhorrent
that those the United Nations entrusted to protect civilians have
committed appalling human rights violations and abuse there, with
serious social, health, and security consequences. Since September
2003, U.N. peacekeeping missions, with combined troop levels
approaching 35,000, have been created in Liberia, Burundi, Haiti, Cote
d'Ivoire and Sudan. We have seen that vulnerability for abuse exists in
these areas of conflict.
U.N. REACTION AND FOLLOWUP MEASURES
U.N. officials at the highest level have repeatedly condemned this
intolerable conduct by peacekeepers and have taken responsibility to
ensure accountability and effective prevention in the future. The
Secretary General has expressed shame and outrage. Last February 9, he
wrote to the Security Council that ``the unconscionable conduct of
those peacekeepers who are culpable now clouds a distinguished record
of collective achievement and individual sacrifice.'' Jan Egeland, the
Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs said, ``What we have
seen in the Congo and elsewhere should never have happened. If we, as
peacekeepers and aid workers, abuse the civilian population, then we
have really failed to protect and help.'' As Under Secretary General
Egeland mentioned, these allegations are not unique to the DRC. Other
allegations involved U.N. peacekeepers in Burundi, Liberia, and Haiti.
In the past, other U.N. agencies have been the locus of allegations in
Kosovo and Sierra Leone. Some cases date back to 2001, where U.N.
peacekeepers in Bosnia were involved in sex trafficking rings.
The Secretary General dispatched a special investigative team to
the DRC in November from U.N. headquarters headed by Assistant
Secretary General Angela Kane. Last month, she briefed the Security
Council Working Group on Peacekeeping Operations about her mission to
investigate the serious cases of sexual exploitation by both military
and civilian peacekeepers. As part of the U.N.'s followup, Deputy
Secretary General, Louise Frechette, visited major U.N. peacekeeping
missions within the last few months to underscore the U.N. zero-
tolerance policy for sexual exploitation and abuse and to stress
enforcement of the U.N. Code of Conduct. Several troop-contributing
countries have reported on action taken against their military members.
Virtually all U.N. peacekeeping missions now undertake some form of
beefing or training on sexual exploitation and abuse.
Mr. Chairman, the United Nations has begun responding to pressure
from the United States, Japan, and other concerned member states. The
U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) sent a team last
summer to investigate these deeply disturbing cases in the DRC, and the
OIOS has made recommendations to alleviate the problem. MONUC has
implemented strict nonfraternization regulations, off-limits areas, and
curfew for its military contingent. A Code of Conduct and Behavior has
long existed and is now the subject of special training sessions for
all U.N. peacekeepers. MONUC has also reached out to women
parliamentarians in the DRC, and conducted interviews with the media
and launched an awareness campaign, particularly with regard to victim
assistance and paternity claims.
I want to acknowledge that we are particularly grateful for the
work of the Secretary General's special adviser, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al-
Hussein. For the past year, he has worked with troop-contributing
countries to develop a comprehensive strategy with recommendations for
more effective action to ensure accountability for breaches of the U.N.
Code of Conduct and actual compliance in the field. On June 22, the
General Assembly adopted resolutions enabling the United Nations to
implement many of the recommendations contained in Prince Zeid's
comprehensive strategy.
From December 2004 to May 2005, the United Nations has completed
investigations into allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse
involving 186 peacekeeping personnel. These investigations have
resulted in the repatriation on disciplinary grounds of 78 military
personnel, including 6 commanders, as well as 2 civilian police from
formed police units. So far, seven U.N. civilian staff members have
been summarily dismissed. Others have disciplinary processes pending. A
centralized database of misconduct cases is designed to prevent those
who have committed abuse from serving with the United Nations in any
capacity in the future.
The U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services has taken the lead
to develop its capacity to investigate independently these allegations
of sexual exploitation and abuse in U.N. missions. In response to
recommendations of the U.N. Special Committee on Peacekeeping, the
Secretary General has requested funding for new OIOS investigative
posts at the U.N. missions in Haiti, DRC, Burundi, Liberia, Cote
d'Ivoire, and Sudan. He also requested new posts for the conduct and
discipline units at the same U.N. missions as well as in Sierra Leone.
He has proposed revision to the OIOS mandate to ensure compliance with
recommendations for a permanent, professional, and independent
investigative function that the General Assembly endorsed.
Looking beyond the U.N.'s current efforts to respond to the
situation, U.N. DPKO prepared draft recommendations on longer term
changes in U.N. rules and procedures needed to equip the U.N. system
with the legal tools to ensure accountability and compliance with the
Code of Conduct in the future. Greater inclusion of women in U.N.
peacekeeping is intended to promote an environment that is less
conducive to exploitation and abuse.
Some troop-contributing countries have also publicly acknowledged
the problem and taken corrective action. It is a positive sign that
Morocco removed two unit commanders in its contingent in Congo and
announced the prosecution of six military members of MONUC who were
repatriated at MONUC's request after allegations of sexual abuse were
substantiated. France has opened judicial proceedings against a
civilian staffer of MONUC, accused of running a pedophile ring. The
U.N. Department of Peacekeeping Operations distributed to all its
missions in June, mandatory training programs for all peacekeeping
personnel to make clear that the Code of Personal Conduct for Blue
Helmets, the observance of international humanitarian law, and the U.N.
zero-tolerance policy for exploitation and abuse will be enforced in
practice. This is particularly important in newer U.N. peacekeeping
missions. The United Nations is developing a model memorandum of
understanding for troop-contributing countries that will address many
of these issues. This draft model MOU is to be presented to the U.N.
General Assembly Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations for
approval in 2006.
U.S. ACTIONS
Mr. Chairman, we have raised the problem of sexual exploitation
with senior U.N. officials at U.N. missions abroad, in New York and
Washington, and with civilian and military officials in the capitals of
major troop-contributing countries. The Department, via diplomatic
channels, urged all troop-contributing countries to take appropriate
disciplinary action according to their military judicial procedures in
cases of repatriation of military members as a result of sexual
exploitation charges.
The Department has reported to Congress on this problem, including
in its most recent annual report on U.N. peacekeeping in June 2005. As
part of the Department's broader efforts to combat trafficking in
persons, the Department last year committed funding for the Department
of Peacekeeping Operations to prepare antitrafficking materials to be
used in training U.N. peacekeepers worldwide on the U.N. policy of zero
tolerance for sexual exploitation and abuse.
The United States has consistently and strongly supported the U.N.
policy of zero tolerance of sexual abuse among peacekeepers, and
insisted that it be implemented in practice. Then-Secretary Powell
conveyed these concerns personally to Secretary General Kofi Annan. At
the insistence of the United States, U.N. Security Council Resolution
1592 of March 30, 2005, which renewed MONUC's mandate, also called on
the Secretary General to ensure compliance with the U.N. zero-tolerance
policy and to take appropriate action against perpetrators of abuse.
Recent Security Council resolutions renewing the mandates of the U.N.
missions in Cote d'Ivoire, Burundi, Cyprus, and Haiti had similar
language. It is U.S. practice to include such language in all Security
Council Resolutions related to peacekeeping. Former Secretary Powell,
together with the Japanese Foreign Minister, wrote to the Secretary
General early this year urging the United Nations to take action
quickly to stop sexual exploitation and abuse by peacekeepers. On May
31, the Security Council adopted a Presidential statement, proposed by
the United States, condemning sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N.
peacekeeping personnel. The statement underscored that U.N. managers
and commanders have primary responsibility to create an environment in
which misconduct is not tolerated.
We strongly supported the proposal to increase the investigative
capacity of OIOS as a critical step toward enhancing accountability and
transparency. OIOS will clearly need more investigators to ensure
enforcement of U.N. policy. OIOS may wish to recruit professional
investigators for peacekeeping missions who have experience in work
with military inspectors general offices.
MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE
Mr. Chairman, more remains to be done. There appears to be
disparities between formal U.N. policies and peacekeeper behavior. For
example, violations of the Code of Conduct continued after the OIOS
investigation in the DRC. Some military commanders did not cooperate
with U.N. investigators.
It is imperative that U.N. officials suspected of criminal activity
or misconduct be investigated and that guilty individuals be punished.
The Secretary General has the right, and the duty, to waive the
immunity of any official in any case where, in his opinion, immunity
would impede the course of justice. The United States wants to ensure
that the Secretary General invokes this privilege whenever warranted.
More importantly, military commanders of national contingents must be
held accountable for actions by perpetrators under their supervision.
If discipline is not enforced, the United Nations must repatriate
commanders and recommend that their national commands take disciplinary
action.
Likewise, DPKO must insist that troop-contributing countries take
appropriate disciplinary action when warranted. It is imperative that
the results of troop-contributing-country actions against perpetrators
of exploitation and abuse be reported to the United Nations
transparently. We urge DPKO to continue working with troop-contributing
countries and mission force commanders with their subordinates, to
underscore the importance of enforcement and deterrence, and to bolster
the highest standards of discipline and conduct fitting for all U.N.
peacekeeping operations.
Standards are necessary, but not sufficient to deal with the
problem. In order to implement the existing standards, the United
Nations must create a culture that rejects and penalizes such abhorrent
behavior at every level, from the senior civilian and military
leadership down to the level of the individual blue-hatted trooper.
In our view, it is most important that this be achieved at the
level of individual national units. If the carefully selected
peacekeepers in a U.N. battalion understand clearly, both from their
training and from the standards and behavior of their unit commander,
that sexual abuse and exploitation will not be tolerated, and that such
behavior will have an immediate negative impact on their own careers,
then the risk of sexual abuse and exploitation by members of that unit
will fall. The converse is true, and we note that unit commanders from
certain other countries have been recalled, and some dismissed, for
failure to meet this standard. Specifically, we have sought the
following from the United Nations and from troop-contributing
countries:
Individuals who would be in a position to commit abuse must
be made to know that sexual abuse and exploitation will be
swiftly investigated and swiftly dealt with, and this
information must also be reinforced by advance training.
The United Nations must require would-be troop-contributing
countries to commit, in writing, to provide U.N.-specific
training on sexual abuse and exploitation before their troops
deploy.
The United Nations must require would-be troop-contributing
countries to commit, in writing, to swiftly deal with
allegations of sexual abuse or exploitation by their own
national disciplinary and administrative means, and to report
to the United Nations the final disposition of each case.
The United Nations must require individual unit commanders
to be held accountable for the behavior of the troops under
their commands.
The United Nations must maintain a roster of persons who
have committed sexual abuse or exploitation while serving with
the United Nations. Those persons must be permanently barred
from service with the United Nations in any capacity.
We will ask the United Nations to provide regular updates on
the status of sexual exploitation and abuse cases.
Mr. Chairman, the United States takes responsibilities, with
respect to U.N. peacekeeping, very seriously. I assure you that we will
continue to work with the United Nations and troop contributors to put
in place measures aimed to end sexual exploitation and abuse by U.N.
peacekeepers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sununu. Thank you very much.
Could you begin by describing how the administration is
evaluating, how the administration, how the United States,
evaluates support for creating a U.N. peacekeeping operations?
What criteria are used and evaluated in deciding whether or not
to lend support in an operation? And, if appropriate, maybe you
can speak to a couple of examples of past missions.
Mr. Dibble. The fundamental question is whether there is a
threat to international peace and security, and that could
obviously stem from different kinds of situations. The most
obvious one, and the traditional one, is where there is a
conflict between states that threatens to go beyond the
immediate neighborhood.
The more difficult assessment and the one where we have had
the most trouble, to be quite frank, is where the conflict is
within a state. The most recent example is in Sudan, where
questions of sovereignty, questions of foreign interference in
internal affairs, have come into play in the debate within the
Security Council and have delayed, quite frankly, responses
that were adequate to the situation at hand. I am happy to say
that we were successful in Sudan, up to a point, in
establishing a peacekeeping operation to enforce the
Comprehensive Peace Agreement in the south.
We have also managed to address, though not quite as
directly, the issue of Darfur by providing assistance outside
the U.N. context to the African Union force, without ruling
out, indefinitely, the possibility that that force, itself,
could turn into a U.N. peacekeeping operation.
Senator Sununu. As you review the work of the United
Nations and the reform of the peacekeeping capacities, what do
you see over the last 6 to 9 months as the most significant
successes and positive developments?
Mr. Dibble. I think the most important have been the
responses of the international community to the crises that
have emerged, mainly in Africa, the willingness on the part of
the United Nations, its member states, and the troop
contributors in particular, to undertake complex missions, the
willingness to adjust rules of engagement to allow peacekeepers
to act aggressively against threats, not only to themselves but
also to the mission, broadly defined, and to civilian
populations.
That is particularly the case, as Jane Lute mentioned, in
eastern Congo. We are looking for something more along those
lines in Haiti.
Senator Sununu. What do you see as the greatest current
weaknesses? What are the greatest concerns within the U.S.
State Department right now with regard to the process of
reforming and improving peacekeeping operations?
Mr. Dibble. Many of the weaknesses were identified in the
Gingrich-Mitchell report, but the most important strategic
weakness, I think, is that we have not yet come to a common
understanding among member states about how to deal with the
full range of issues that are in play in a complex peacekeeping
operation and in post-conflict situations, generally. What we
would like to see, obviously, is a peacekeeping operation
established and then ended without the need, then to return in
however many months or years because the followup has failed.
That is the purpose of the peacebuilding commission as we
see it, to complement the stability and security element of
peacekeeping with a broader range of capabilities that exist,
either within the U.N. system or among member states, that can
be brought to bear to keep things--to move a country onto a
stable path.
Senator Sununu. One of the issues that came up in the
presentations by the briefers is the issue of information
gathering. This was raised by the Gingrich-Mitchell task force
as well. They recommended that member states should generate
resources required to ensure that all peacekeeping missions
have information-gathering capacity to ensure operational
success.
How can the United States do this and to what extent should
the United States share its intelligence and other information-
gathering capacity to ensure the success of peacekeeping
operations?
Mr. Dibble. I think there is no question that we share the
view that troops in the field need an intelligence capacity,
especially if they are deploying into areas where they are
required not just to sit there and watch, but to act
aggressively.
It is a very difficult issue, I think, for us and it is one
that--I have found in my career that intelligence agencies tend
to be jealous of their information and sharing is very
difficult, even within the U.S. Government. But there is
clearly a need and we clearly need to find a way to help
address it.
Senator Sununu. Are there any specific avenues or specific
approaches that you believe would be most effective or that the
State Department is in a position to recommend?
Mr. Dibble. We have not given it the degree of thought,
given that most of the information is not ours to share. I
think it is fair to say that, given the impetus behind U.N.
reform, generally, that this, too, may be something that we
need to consider as we go forward.
Senator Sununu. Regarding the Gingrich-Mitchell task force,
does the administration support increased funding to implement
the various recommendations? We just spoke about one, in
particular, regarding information-gathering. But what kind of
funding mechanisms and what kind of commitments with regard to
resources is the State Department prepared to endorse?
Mr. Dibble. We keep very much in mind, our duty to the
taxpayer and we encourage the United Nations, wherever
possible, to fund new operations, new commitments, from within
existing resources. We think that until there is significant
management and budget reform within the United Nations, there
is bound to be a certain amount of fat within the United
Nations that could be moved to more productive uses.
That said, we have already voted to approve the funding of
the investigative positions within OIOS to undertake the
investigations needed in connection with sexual exploitation
and abuse and other misconduct. There are other instances,
where the need is compelling and the ability is clear, where we
would support increased funding, for example, just not
particularly directly connected with peacekeeping, but the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, for example.
Senator Sununu. Well, I want to thank you and again thank
our briefers. As I said before, I think I would like to follow
up with some additional questions perhaps in writing, in
particular with perhaps a request to expand a little bit on
what opportunities there might be to improve information-
gathering and information-sharing in the field. Your point
about the difficulties of sharing information even within our
own Government is a challenge. It is a challenge for
policymakers and legislators and those that work within the
bureaucracy. But I think it is something that we need to pursue
and address.
Mr. Dibble. I agree.
Senator Sununu. Because more and more, given the nature of
the mission, given our interest in redefining and improving
this role as peacebuilding, having good information, real-time
information, not just intelligence but just good real-time
information as to the state of affairs in a particular region,
is absolutely critical. So I think that is something that the
subcommittee is very interested in pursuing.
Thank you very much for your time and your testimony. With
that, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
An Additional Question and Answer Submitted for the Record
Response of Acting Assistant Secretary Dibble to Question From Senator
Sununu
Question. What steps is the administration prepared to take to
provide U.N. peacekeeping operations with the real-time information
that the Gingrich-Mitchell report called for and which the United
Nations has requested?
Answer. Legal requirements to protect intelligence sources and
methods restrict our ability to share U.S. intelligence gathered
through such sources and methods with the United Nations. However, we
have supported the U.N.'s creation of Joint Mission Analysis Cells and
Joint Operations Cells in U.N. peacekeeping operations to gather and
analyze information on U.N. peacekeeping missions and to provide
relevant information and analysis to mission leadership, including to
military commanders in support of current operations. For example, such
cells are now operating in U.N. peacekeeping missions in Haiti and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In addition, we have also supported, as part of our facilitation of
the Uganda-Rwanda-Congo Tripartite Commission, establishment of a joint
fusion cell to pool information on regional security threats among
those three countries and MONUC, the U.N. Mission in the Congo.