LA Times Squelches U.N. Congo Sex Story
The story of the U.N. sex scandal in Congo is hanging on by a thread, evidence that the media is running from the story as eagerly as they ran to the Abu Grhaib story. The Washington Post and Christian Science Monitor both ran stories recently (summarized below) but this is a media drizzle, not a media storm.
First, though, big questions about the L.A. Times' coverage:
Maggie Farley of the L.A. Times, who did a good job of breaking the Congo sex scandal story, did an equally good job of covering it up today. Her long pg. 3 piece on U.N. is an apologetic wonder, attempting to cobble together evidence that the U.N. presence in Central Africa is succeeding in holding together a shaky peace. She has a difficult time making its case, citing little in the way of hard evidence the U.N. is actually succeeding, and noting that the same forces that have ravaged the area are still there, and still building their strength.
The story makes no mention of the sex scandal in Congo. Can you imagine the reporter that broke the Abu Grhaib story ignoring any mention of it in a wrap-up story a couple days later? As a former reporter, I can't; but then, I quit reporting because it was much too cynical a profession for me.
Two things might have happened here. First, Farley could have dropped the reference herself, either because she felt pressure from U.N. officials in Africa who were responsible for her safety, or because she is more sympathetic to the U.N. that she is to the girls who were raped. If the U.N. pressured her, then her editors in Los Angeles probably would not have added a reference, since they need to protect their overseas staff. (This is Reuter's excuse for using bland terminology in stead of "terrorist.") If this is the case, it speaks of U.N. cover-up and coercion, and should further the media's desire to investigate the case, not quelch it.
If Farley voluntarily edited her copy, it's simply evidence of pro-U.N. bias -- but to an extreme level that is difficult to comprehend.
The other option is that Farley included a reference in her article, and her editors cut it out in order to protect the U.N. If this is the case, everyone involved in this outrageous breach of news judgment deserves to be fired.
As mentioned above, the story still is weak in the MSM, but hasn't died. Here are the two recent stories:
The Washington Post (here) includes this new information:
The worst alleged violations occurred in the town of Bunia, where more than half of the U.N. mission is headquartered. The U.N. Office of Internal Oversight cited 68 allegations of sexual misconduct against U.N. military personnel and four against civilians in Bunia between May and September 2004.
A 13-year-old girl interviewed in Bunia by Zeid's team said that she was raped by a U.N. worker. "One day, in May 2004, my grandmother had to attend a funeral and I was left alone at home to look after my brothers and sisters," she told investigators. "That night, around 8 p.m., one of the [U.N. Congo mission's] soldiers came into the house. He raped me. My brothers and sisters were in the house at the time."
An article in the Christian Science Monitor (here) points out that while the problem is pervasive, prosecution isn't, because (as in this case) offenders are transferred home, where prosecution is rare:
This darker side of nation-building is explored at length in a new book, "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth." The book has scandalized the UN - Miramax reportedly may turn it into a TV show or movie.
"We draw a distinction between wild behavior that's consensual, and where officials have a duty of care they are abusing," says Amnesty's [Gita] Sahgal.
Sexual violations, says Sahgal, arise from a pervasive air of impunity. Violence against women is generally not prosecuted in the peacekeepers' homeland, let alone in a chaotic war or post-conflict zone. The UN also has no right to conduct background checks on the personnel a country contributes to a mission. And most significantly, foreign troops often enjoy immunity agreements.
Victim advocates complain it's rare for a commander to take accusations against underlings seriously, and even rarer to act against alleged perpetrators. "If a few men were prosecuted ... I think they'd be much more on guard," says Sahgal. "Yet I don't see much evidence of that happening."
The article also outlines previous sex scandals by U.N. troops:
Wherever the UN has established operations in recent years, various violations of women seem to follow:
First, though, big questions about the L.A. Times' coverage:
Maggie Farley of the L.A. Times, who did a good job of breaking the Congo sex scandal story, did an equally good job of covering it up today. Her long pg. 3 piece on U.N. is an apologetic wonder, attempting to cobble together evidence that the U.N. presence in Central Africa is succeeding in holding together a shaky peace. She has a difficult time making its case, citing little in the way of hard evidence the U.N. is actually succeeding, and noting that the same forces that have ravaged the area are still there, and still building their strength.
The story makes no mention of the sex scandal in Congo. Can you imagine the reporter that broke the Abu Grhaib story ignoring any mention of it in a wrap-up story a couple days later? As a former reporter, I can't; but then, I quit reporting because it was much too cynical a profession for me.
Two things might have happened here. First, Farley could have dropped the reference herself, either because she felt pressure from U.N. officials in Africa who were responsible for her safety, or because she is more sympathetic to the U.N. that she is to the girls who were raped. If the U.N. pressured her, then her editors in Los Angeles probably would not have added a reference, since they need to protect their overseas staff. (This is Reuter's excuse for using bland terminology in stead of "terrorist.") If this is the case, it speaks of U.N. cover-up and coercion, and should further the media's desire to investigate the case, not quelch it.
If Farley voluntarily edited her copy, it's simply evidence of pro-U.N. bias -- but to an extreme level that is difficult to comprehend.
The other option is that Farley included a reference in her article, and her editors cut it out in order to protect the U.N. If this is the case, everyone involved in this outrageous breach of news judgment deserves to be fired.
As mentioned above, the story still is weak in the MSM, but hasn't died. Here are the two recent stories:
The Washington Post (here) includes this new information:
The worst alleged violations occurred in the town of Bunia, where more than half of the U.N. mission is headquartered. The U.N. Office of Internal Oversight cited 68 allegations of sexual misconduct against U.N. military personnel and four against civilians in Bunia between May and September 2004.
A 13-year-old girl interviewed in Bunia by Zeid's team said that she was raped by a U.N. worker. "One day, in May 2004, my grandmother had to attend a funeral and I was left alone at home to look after my brothers and sisters," she told investigators. "That night, around 8 p.m., one of the [U.N. Congo mission's] soldiers came into the house. He raped me. My brothers and sisters were in the house at the time."
An article in the Christian Science Monitor (here) points out that while the problem is pervasive, prosecution isn't, because (as in this case) offenders are transferred home, where prosecution is rare:
This darker side of nation-building is explored at length in a new book, "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth." The book has scandalized the UN - Miramax reportedly may turn it into a TV show or movie.
"We draw a distinction between wild behavior that's consensual, and where officials have a duty of care they are abusing," says Amnesty's [Gita] Sahgal.
Sexual violations, says Sahgal, arise from a pervasive air of impunity. Violence against women is generally not prosecuted in the peacekeepers' homeland, let alone in a chaotic war or post-conflict zone. The UN also has no right to conduct background checks on the personnel a country contributes to a mission. And most significantly, foreign troops often enjoy immunity agreements.
Victim advocates complain it's rare for a commander to take accusations against underlings seriously, and even rarer to act against alleged perpetrators. "If a few men were prosecuted ... I think they'd be much more on guard," says Sahgal. "Yet I don't see much evidence of that happening."
The article also outlines previous sex scandals by U.N. troops:
Wherever the UN has established operations in recent years, various violations of women seem to follow:
- A prostitution ring in Bosnia involved peacekeepers, while Canadian troops there were accused of beatings, rape, and sexually abusing a handicapped girl.
- Local UN staff in West Africa reportedly withheld aid, such as bags of flour, from refugees in exchange for sexual favors.
- Jordanian peacekeepers in East Timor were accused of rape.
- Italian troops in Somalia and Bulgarian troops in Cambodia were accused of sexual abuses.
- In May, Moroccan and Uruguayan peacekeepers in Congo were accused of luring teenage girls into their camp with offers of food for sex. The girls then fed the banana and cake remuneration to their infants, whom media reported had been born as a result of multiple rapes by militiamen.
posted by Laer at 11:06 AM
<< Home