The Whistleblower
features the story of Kathryn Bolkovac, a United Nations peace keeper in Bosnia
who soon uncovered the country’s expansive sex trafficking system run by her
very own colleagues. Bolkovac joined the IPTF (International Police Task Force)
with the UN under contract with DynCorp. DynCorp is a private military contractor
that has multiple deals with the US State Department. It has provided peace
keepers for 11 countries, and almost all of its $3.1 billion annual revenue
comes from the US government. Upon arriving in Bosnia, Bolkovac facilitated the
country’s first conviction for domestic violence against a woman. Madaline
Rees, a UN human rights official, soon appointed her to be head of a UN faction
dealing with violence against women in Bosnia. Bolkovac uncovered brothels
filled with scared girls, dirty mattresses, thousands of US dollars, and
passports. However, she soon found that after raids on these places, the girls
were circled right back into the system of slavery. After questioning some of
the girls and fellow IPTF workers, Bolkovac realized the corruption of the
system. Fellow peace makers, UN officials, military officers, and police were
on the brothel owner’s payroll to tip off raids and return escapees, were
clients of the girls, would buy girls, and were actually smuggling the girls
into Bosnia. When Bolkovac tried to uncover more of the scandal, officials
tried to persuade Bolkovac to leave, she received many threats from fellow employees,
her files went missing and her cases pulled, and DynCorp finally fired her for “falsifying
timesheets”. Bolkovac sued DynCorp on grounds of false termination and won,
however has been unable to find work in any other international law enforcement
agency. This suggests that no one else wants a whistleblower in their organization
because perhaps the same scandals are occurring there.
Bolkovac smuggled her files out of Bosnia and
shone light on the illegal activities of some of her fellow colleagues.
However, UN peacekeepers enjoy diplomatic immunity. They cannot be tried by
Bosnia. The UN also has very little jurisdiction over those in question. They
can waive immunity if it is an extreme case of personal misconduct outside of a
mission. The UN usually just fires the individual and lets the home country deal
with prosecution. Home countries will rarely ever prosecute, partially because
they do not want to shine light on crimes committed by their own citizens.
After Bolkovac’s ordeal, DynCorp announced that some employees were fired for misconduct,
but none were ever prosecuted by their home country.
Similar
cases have underlined Bolkovac’s cry for justice. Aircraft mechanic Ben
Johnston was also hired by the UN and placed in Bosnia. There, he witnessed
other employees taking part in the sex trafficking. A fellow airplane mechanic,
weighing 400 pounds and always asleep on the job, would brag about the 14 year
old girl that he owned. Johnston exposed a video of John Hirtz, Bosnia’s
DynCorp site supervisor, raping two girls. Hirtz was fired, but never
prosecuted. Johnston claims that because of such corruption, Bosnians are now highly
mistrusting of Americans. Johnston was later fired. UN peacekeepers have admitted
to other failures. Other sex scandals have been uncovered in multiple
countries, including Haiti and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
After Whistleblower was released, the UN
debated on whether or not to screen the movie. Many top officials opposed.
After the screening, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon made a statement conveying
the sadness of such events, and said, “it is important that the public
recognizes the many steps the UN has taken since then to prevent and punish
such terrible abuses”. However, Margot Wallström, UN’s Special
Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict, stated, “To date, there have been just 30 convictions in response
to an estimated 50,000 rapes during the years of war”.
In line of liberal theory, institutions are the answer to
peace. They are the ultimate solution to win win, positive sum situations.
Institutions give countries the chance to cooperate, which is what every state inherently
wishes to do. In the United Nation’s original charter, overarching goals were
stated. The UN was created by multiple nations to create and maintain international
peace and security, solve international problems and human rights, and be a
center for harmonization. According to liberalists, UN peacekeeping missions
should be a success. The host state wants domestic peace and the participating
peacekeeping states want international peace. According to rationalist theory,
the cost and benefit balance sheet checks out- it is in every one’s interest
that the operation go smoothly and that peace is implemented. So then why is it
that peace keeping missions like the one is Bosnia end up corrupt and failed?
Reflectivists would point fingers to the individuals in these missions. Within
the missions are humans, each with different emotions and personalities. With
1,800 UN police officers from 45 different countries currently on ground, many
cultures are thrown into the mix. Some of these men sign up just because they
know of the easy access to illegal money and free girls. Some convert to these
ways during missions because they see so many others acting wrongfully. UN
peacekeepers do not have one common identity. They do not all belong to one
single state or share common culture or ideas. This leads to a lack of trust in
the system, which leads to corruption.
States may want peace in
Bosnia, but when hired by the UN, peace keepers are not representing states.
They are not part of the identity of a state. Their ambiguity gives men the
environment where it is okay to drop their morals at the door and walk into a
war torn nation just to make it even uglier. There is no moral accountability
in such a situation. In fact, there is no accountability of any kind to speak of. These men bask in
political immunity, and will most likely never face charges for any crimes they
commit. However, why should rape be illegal in the US and not overseas? The
answer is easy, it shouldn’t be. Rationalists would argue that we should not
bother interfering in other state’s domestic affairs, but rather focus on our
own buildup of power. However, in an increasingly global world, a state’s
domestic problems affect other states and therefore it becomes and
international problem. Instead, the UN can take steps to maintain its
institution without the corruptions. To begin with, it should not grant
political immunity so freely. The UN should employ more female police officers,
should put more emphasis on anti- sex trafficking training, and should promote
more of a community among peace keepers. Lastly, DynCorp should be held
responsible for its actions. In order to sue DynCorp, Bolkovac had to travel to
the UK, where DynCorp’s contract was instated. Now, DynCorp has changed its
system so that jurisdiction lands under Dubai, making it even harder for anyone
to prosecute them. After the incident in Bosnia, DynCorp landed more
multimillion dollar contracts for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reoccurring
problem seen with both the UN and DynCorp is that with multinational institutions
or organizations, accountability and jurisdiction become hazy. A realist world
would not face such problems, for everything is centered around the state. However,
the current world where international relations is increasingly dictated by
non-state actors, a system of accountability for these actors must be established
to ensure common good.
Works
Cited
Diu, Nisha. What the UN Doesn't Want
You to Know. The Telegraph. February 6th, 2012.
Isenberg, David. It's Déjà Vu for
DynCorp All Over Again. The Huffington Post. December 6th,
Ki-Moon, Ban. Secretary-General Comments on Film on Issue of Sex Trafficking, Stressing Need for
Wider Awareness, 'Zero Tolerance' Policy Response. The UN. October 14th, 2011.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sgsm13878.doc.htm
Wider Awareness, 'Zero Tolerance' Policy Response. The UN. October 14th, 2011.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sgsm13878.doc.htm
US: DynCorp
Disgrace. Insight Magazine. January 14th,
2002.
Vardi, Nathan. DynCorp Takes
Afghanistan. Forbes. July 30th, 2009.
http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/30/dyncorp-kbr-afghanistan-business-logistics-dyncorp.html
Vulliamy, Ed. Has the UN learned
lessons of Bosnian sex slavery revealed in Rachel Weisz film?
The Guardian. January 14th, 2012. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/15/bosnia-sex-trafficking-whistleblower
Wallström, Margot. UN envoy welcomes
conviction for rape and murder during Bosnian conflict.
UN News Center. November 9th, 2011. chttp://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=
40348&Cr=sexual+violence&Cr1=&Kw1=Bosnia&Kw2=sex&Kw3=
The Whistleblower. Dir. Larysa Kondracki. Perf. Rachel Weisz.
Samuel Goldwyn Films, 2010. DVD.
I strongly agree with you - there should be more accountability of peacekeepers in general. A couple things though confused me. Is it really not illegal in Bosnia to run brothels and rape women? Perhaps it is illegal, but not enforced - that seemed more like the argument you were making. Also, what do you think the UN should do to have more of a bite? Who do you think should be held responsible for such actions, and persecuting such actions? Do you think realists would agree with giving the UN the jurisdiction to persecute corrupt employees as they are given the right to keep peace in other places? Would reflectivists?
ReplyDeleteOne of the most concerning aspects of this article, for me, was the reaction to Bolkovac and Johnston's findings. Not only was Bolkovac wrongly fired, but even after her successful lawsuit she was essentially blackballed from all other international law enforcement agencies. Similarly, Johnston was fired for basically exposing a fellow employee's rape of 2 girls. It is mind-blowing, yet not surprising, that agencies could punish those who were actually putting themselves out there for justice. Especially being punished by international LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies! This leads me to considerably doubt the legitimacy of the agencies we are putting our money into, in the hopes of bringing about peace. With the addition of the disappearance of funds meant for tsunami relief, and the information that UN officials were committing pedophilic rape in Africa among other things, the UN's agencies appear to be doing more harm than good. Would you agree with, or refute this observation? Also, you stated that the UN should not be giving political immunity so readily. How do you believe the UN and its members will react to the UN's interference in the area of Justice? Personally, I believe that the UN's interference in a suspect's prosecution will create tensions within the UN that many states will strongly oppose. Many countries have different views of laws and the punishments for breaking them, thus, it could become a large culture issue as well. They will probably oppose this because of the attention that proceedings will bring to the indiscretions of their country’s officials. They seem to worry more about the country’s international image rather than securing justice for wrongdoings.
ReplyDeleteValerie,
DeleteI would agree that the most pressing issue is not even the problem itself, but the lack of strong reaction to it. The way that Bolkovac was fired and subsequently blacklisted suggests that many of these military contracting companies are committing the same sorts of crimes. However, even more concerning than the reaction of the individual contractors was that of the UN itself. Its passivity is extremely worrisome, and makes me fear that perhaps even the actual bureaucracy of the UN has at least some sort of knowledge of these sorts of transgressions. If this is the case, perhaps even a removal of political immunity and giving the UN the power of persecution would not truly be enough. The only question then is: what would be enough?
This article is very well written and incredibly persuasive. I just have a few comments and questions, many of which may seem to eerily echo the thoughts of Valerie.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it is incredibly disturbing that such atrocities occur and can be linked to the UN. Such an institution was made to prevent the infringment of human rights. If this is how some humans act when granted de facto anonymity, is Thomas Hobbes right? Are humans destined to live short, nasty, brutish lives, incapable of acting decently unless strictly ruled by a governing authority? Or are these merely the acts of a comparitive few, and not to be demonstrative of human nature as a whole?
Secondly, I want to question you a little bit more in depth of what you think the UN should do to prevent such things from happening, and, should they happen again, how the organization should react. I do agree with your statement that the UN should not grant immunity so readily, but how do you suggest the UN regulate this? I can only assume there would be extensive background checks and psychological evaluations, and then a period of time that would count as a sort of "trial period," in which the workers would be highly supervised and made aware of their lack of immunity. But would this hinder the efficiency of what work the UN needs to do? I apologize for going off on a tangent there; your argument has sparked a great deal of thinking for me.
Regarding how the UN should react to the abuse of human rights and diplomatic immunity while a person is affiliated with them, would you suggest the organization take the prosecution of such people? Should the UN declare that, while person is working for or is affiliated with the UN, they are under the jurisdiction of the UN? What would be the consequences of that? Would that give the UN too much sovereignty, or would it take away too much sovereignty from the home states of UN workers?
If the UN were to make any changes to its approach of human rights abuses, such as those depicted in "The Whistle Blower," it would be unable to apply the changes to those at fault. Rather, the new changes would only apply to current workers and new workers, who would have to read and agree to such changes, or so I would assume. Or would you suggest another option.
I am sorry this comment got away from me, and consisted of little more than me throwing my opinions at you. I really would like to hear if you have any more in-depth suggestions of how the UN deal with, or preferably prevent, such infringments upon human rights.
I enjoyed reading your article, and thought it was very thought-provoking and engaging. I want to hear what you have to say about one of your particular proposals: Not granting political immunity. I think that political immunity within the United Nations is a large part of keeping the power balanced,and prevents one country from having too much influence on another. Like Valerie stated in her previous comment, by allowing countries to interfere within the UN justice system- many countries with distinct differences in culture will see different interpretations of the laws and punishments that follow. What do you think would best suit fixing this problem? Because political immunity is such a feature characteristic of the UN legal system, is there any way to work around this problem that would still allow political immunity in certain areas? Or does this evident abuse of the system involving trafficked girls mean that the system is flawed? Or just perhaps the people who are in control of the system ie. corruption?
ReplyDeleteThanks for covering such an interesting topic! I saw the film as well and found it both thought provoking and disturbing.
ReplyDeleteI walked out wondering how the US could value the multi-billion dollar State Department contracts in these countries over human dignity, which brings together the debate over rationalist vs. reflectivist perspectives. Do you think the US department favored the rationalist perspective of valuing the contracts over the reflectivist's perspective of the morals of human dignity? What do you think are the potential implications for the relationship between the US government and the US people in the context of a two level game in regards to the issue of human trafficking and peace keeping bodies?
Once again, thank you for writing on such an interesting topic!
Hi everyone! Thank you so much for your interest in this topic. I know it's been a while since my initial post, but I just wanted to let you know that I'm working on responses to your great questions right now and will post them soon.
ReplyDeleteIn your post you mentioned some changes that you felt should be made to be in order to improve the system in order to remove corruption. I was just curious to know what steps the UN had taken, if any,directly after the release of the film in 2010. Has the film fallen on deaf ears and has been unable of reaching the global community in order to pressure the UN and other organizations into enacting change?
ReplyDeleteHey guys! Blogspot isn't allowing me to post my response here because its too long and I've tried to break it down into three different sections but it's still not letting me so I'm going to post the response as another individual blog post.
ReplyDelete