All Things Whistleblower: A GAP Blog

Reports of Sexual Assault at the United Nations

In the past month, GAP has been approached by three separate whistleblowers who have raised concerns about sexual assaults involving United Nations employees as victims, witnesses and perpetrators. (Similar disclosures have also surfaced on the website Wikileaks, as described in a separate blog entry). Although the specifics of these confidential cases vary, the similarities suggest that the United Nations may have a systemic problem in how it handles this serious physical crime.

In each case, concerns were raised about the failure of the UN’s applicable internal investigative body – in most cases the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) – to adequately investigate: a) sexual assault by a UN employee against another employee, b) sexual assault of a refugee by a UN worker, and/or c) retaliation against the person who either reported an assault or challenged the organization’s handling of it. Concerns have also been raised by these (and other) whistleblowers about the failure of OIOS to disclose investigation reports to complainants. Best practices in whistleblower protection require that such investigative reports be provided to the whistleblower in order to protect their due process rights. Moreover, in cases of assault – and particularly in rape cases – scrupulous observance of the victim’s human and civil rights is the first step in restoring a sense of physical integrity.

Ongoing delays in the reform of the UN internal justice system have dramatically curtailed the ability of these whistleblowers to challenge OIOS procedures in cases of criminal assault. But even if an OIOS investigation report and/or the reformed formal justice system vindicate the complainants, those responsible for sexual abuse may not be held accountable. According to a Secretary-General Bulletin regarding Special Measures for Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse, “if, after proper investigation there is evidence to support allegations of sexual exploitation or sexual abuse, these cases may, upon consultation with the Office of Legal Affairs, be referred to national authorities for criminal prosecution.” (emphasis added) Leaving the prosecution of a violent crime to the discretion of any individual fundamentally violates the principle of the rule of law.  It is an appalling lapse, and is especially inexplicable in an institution charged with articulating and defending human rights.

In reference to officials and experts on mission, a review of OIOS states:

…[W]ith respect to criminal accountability, although the Secretary-General may waive the immunity of Organization peacekeeping personnel involved in certain instances, waiver of immunity does not typically apply to SEA (sexual exploitation and abuse) cases since the criminal offense is likely to not have been committed in the performance of the official duties of the official or an ‘expert on mission,’ i.e., the status granted to members of the civilian police and military observers... Thus, in cases where immunity does not apply, if evidence of the crime is sufficiently substantiated, the judicial authorities of the host country may assume jurisdiction over the case. However, should the host country decide to close the case and forego follow-up investigation or prosecution, the Organization has no forms of recourse or sanction. (p. 71)

Although sexual assault cases are outside GAP’s normal purview, we are deeply concerned about the apparent failure of the United Nations to adequately protect the rights of assault victims employed by the UN or subjected to abuse at the hands of UN employees, peacekeepers or contractors. Quite simply, the prosecution of those who have sexually assaulted anyone is the unquestionable responsibility of the justice system with jurisdiction if it is to be recognized as legitimate. Investigation and prosecution of violent crimes is not optional.

-- Shelley Walden

What a Difference a Few Years and a New Presidential Admin Makes

Former GAP client and NASA climatologist James Hansen is calling for a civil disobedience protest regarding the federal government’s handling of global warming.

While that's pretty much news in itself, what's really interesting here is the stark contrast to how NASA is now treating its employees from years ago under the Bush administration. You may recall that Hansen was muzzled by NASA and the Bush administration from speaking out about the dangers of global warming in 2005.

Now? Not so much. From FOX News, a NASA spokesman has stated, regarding Hansen’s recent actions:

“He's doing this as a private citizen on his own time and there's nothing wrong with that…There's nothing partisan here. You don't give up your rights to free speech by becoming a government employee."

Well that seems like progress.

-- Dylan Blaylock

United Nations Sexual Assault/Harassment Reports on Wikileaks

The website Wikileaks recently posted numerous confidential UN Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) investigative reports. Certain reports demonstrate how OIOS investigated sexual assault/harassment allegations made by those within and outside the United Nations, including:

• Allegations made by female employees in the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo of sexual exploitation/rape by a staff member who threatened their continuing employment. OIOS did not fully investigate this case or make a judicial referral due to a lack of corroborating evidence.
• Sexual harassment and abuse of employees of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA). OIOS found insufficient evidence to support the sexual harassment allegations. OIOS then attempted to identify the individual who had leaked the harassment allegations to the British, U.S. and Ethiopian governments. OIOS recommended that the suspected leakers be disciplined and that the Office of Legal Affairs consider initiating a civil suit against a former employee for “damage” caused by this leak. 
• Allegations of sexual harassment by an employee of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA). The case was initially investigated by two people at UNRWA who had no “formal investigative training” and found no harassment. OIOS subsequently investigated and found that the evidence tended to support the allegations of sexual harassment but not of workplace harassment. Because the harasser had retired, he was not disciplined. 
• 217 allegations of abuse of girls and women by peacekeepers in Eastern Congo against 39 peacekeepers. Of these, only one allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse against an individual peacekeeper was substantiated. It is not clear what disciplinary measures, if any, were taken.

It should be noted that in most of these cases there were multiple complainants, a circumstance that lends substantial credence to the allegations. But even in cases where there were numerous complainants, OIOS rarely found proof of wrongdoing. Even more disturbingly, in the few instances in which OIOS did substantiate sexual assault allegations, it appears that disciplinary measures may not have been taken. This suggests that sexual assailants in the UN can attack with impunity. To address this situation, the UN should reform OIOS (as suggested in two recent studies) and the UN formal justice system and refer prosecution of assault perpetrators to the relevant national authorities for criminal prosecution.

--Shelley Walden

World Bank to Annouce Debarments when they Happen

The World Bank, in an email to a reporter, has stated that it will publicly announce when it officially debars companies from direct contract work.  The Bank already discloses the names of companies it debars from contract work on loans and projects in borrowing countries, but until December, 2008, the identities of companies debarred from working directly for the Bank itself were secret.

Over the past several months, the Bank has received much criticism about the lack of transparency in dealing with disgraced IT company Satyam, which perpetrated a $1 billion fraud on investors. That company was only found to be debarred when an official, trying to acquit Satyam of responsibility for cyber leaks, informed GAP that the company had been debarred.

Of course, one of the serious problems in this episode is that the Bank didn’t inform other organizations, even after it had begun serious investigations of Satyam regarding corruption and fraud.  Although the Bank suspended Satyam from consideration for future direct contracts in February, 2008 and debarred it in September, the information was withheld from the public until December. In the meanwhile, UNDP awarded a six-million dollar contract to the company.

While the public announcements are a positive step, the official debarment policy and procedure are still under wraps.  As a result, “official debarments” can be delayed until their disclosure best serves the Bank.

-- Dylan Blaylock

 

GAP's Jesselyn Radack on 1600 Penn. Avenue

Last night, GAP Homeland Security Director Jesselyn Radack was a guest on the MSNBC program 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, discussing both the internal ethics investigation at the Justice Department regarding the infamous “torture memos” the Bush administration used to justify enhanced interrogation techniques, and the current state of legislation that would upgrade federal worker whistleblower protections.

Unfortunately, YouTube doesn’t have the full piece (intro and interview) in one file. So here are both of them. First, the intro:

Now the actual interview:

If you’d like to read what else Jesselyn has to say about the matter, you can check out her personal blog on DailyKos by clicking here.

Stimulus-Whistleblower Bill Sticking Points; Name a New CPSC Head

There is an excellent article in the Washington Post today on some of the behind-the-scenes aspects regarding what happened last week when federal employee whistleblower protections were stripped out of the stimulus package. The article focuses on what has been the most public of sticking points with the legislation – extending whistleblower rights to national security whistleblowers so that they could safely report wrongdoing to superiors and relevant Congressional committees:

The House, which has held multiple hearings showcasing whistleblower complaints, sees it differently. Under its bill, whistleblowers would be protected for the first time for tattling to superiors and, under certain circumstances, to members of at least five other committees besides intelligence, including those responsible for armed services and homeland security. Gates complained that this would allow federal workers to decide on their own "to disclose classified information to a broad universe" not entitled to hear it.

[GAP Legal Director Tom] Devine responds that the committee members have relevant clearances and "should not be treated as second-class citizens." Opposition to this is, he says, "just an excuse to avoid oversight."

Also in today’s Post comes another good story from Joe Davidson about the next steps some whistleblower rights advocates are taking to ensure the issue is brought up in the next 110-odd days, before the spending goes into effect. Rep. Chris Van Hollen will reintroduce the measure shortly. If you’d like more info on the whistleblower provisions being stripped from the stimulus bill, there also is this solid piece from ProPublic, which includes GAP’s take on why the protections are important:

Federal employees "are the ones that are in the best position to know how the funds are being spent," said Adam Miles, legislative representative for the Government Accountability Project. "If a federal auditor writes a hard-hitting memo and it touches a political nerve, he can be fired just for doing his job well."

In other news, Howard Dean is a long-shot to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, the FDA Commissioner position seems to have come down to two people, and the federal government is requiring that all new nuclear power plant must be able to withstand commercial airline strikes. No upgrades needed for the old ones, apparently.

Last, but not least, the New York Times put out a strong masthead editorial today urging President Obama to “quickly replace” the Chairman of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (Nancy Nord) in favor of “the kind of enlightened leadership that every parent and toy lover needs and that will give consumer safety the priority it deserves.” This is absolutely the right thing to do, as legislation that greatly improves the authority of the CPSC signed into law late last year (in response to the ‘killer toy scandal’) has not been implemented because of a lack of leadership from Nord, who opposed the actually opposed the measure.

Why would Nord possibly not want greater authority for CPSC to help protect the public? Well, keep in mind that back in 2007, Nord got in some hot water when the Washington Post revealed that she had “taken dozens of trips at the expense of the toy, appliance and children's furniture industries and others they regulate…Some of the trips were sponsored by lobbying groups and lawyers representing the makers of products linked to consumer hazards.” Just saying.  

-- Dylan Blaylock

To Add on to the Financial Times

The Financial Times ran this article over the long weekend, using the story of a U.K. whistleblower to argue that the case is an outlier, and that whistleblowers typically face long, ongoing battles and retaliation if they choose to expose corruption or wrongdoing. The piece utilizes passages from a GAP publication, Courage Without Martyrdom, to make its point:

Few whistleblowers enjoy such sweet revenge. The Government Accountability Project, a US organisation that supports whistleblowers, has a message for anyone else thinking of exposing an employer’s wrongdoing: think hard before you do because you are going to suffer.

In a book called Courage Without Martyrdom, which the organisation has posted on its website, it warns that whistleblowers “pay an enormous professional and personal price for their actions – often a price they did not anticipate”.

While the just of the article is correct in stating that whistleblowers often face enormous problems in blowing the whistle, GAP wishes to add two notes.

First, GAP does not state that all whistleblowers face retaliation, but rather that it is a likelihood. The full sentence from Courage Without Martyrdom reads: “Time and again, GAP has seen whistleblowers pay an enormous professional and personal price for their actions – often a price they did not anticipate.”

Secondly, GAP in no way wishes to advise that all employees with evidence of wrongdoing to remain silent. This difficult decision must be made by the individual themselves, and organizations like GAP exist to provide information that helps them make the choice, and assist them if they decide to come forward.

-- Dylan Blaylock