Sexual abuse remains a persistent and devastating problem for multilateral peacekeeping efforts, inflicting deep harm on survivors and eroding the credibility of the missions. Building on a recent investigation into UN peacekeeper abuse in the Central African Republic, The New Humanitarian convened an online event to discuss what might lie beyond supposed “zero tolerance” policies.
Hosted on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, the discussion featured experts from academia, practice, and policy:
Touching on systemic challenges, inequities, and opportunities to improve accountability and survivor support, below are some key takeaways from last month’s wide-ranging discussion on Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment (PSEAH).
Watch the full event here and read our takeaways below:
A persistent, systemic, and global crisis
Sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeepers remains a devastating problem, compounded by systemic inequities and structural barriers, as investigations by The New Humanitarian have highlighted. These reports reveal the persistence of abuse alongside systemic failures in response mechanisms, with survivors often facing inadequate support and accountability processes hindered by bureaucratic inefficiencies and jurisdictional gaps.
In the conversation, Leah Nyambeki Orwoba, speaking with over 10 years of experience in safeguarding and victim advocacy, highlighted the human cost of these failures, noting that “for me, it came to the point – the realisation – that victims are victims. They are impacted in the same way – there’s no distinction on how a violation happens and the impact it has on them, whether it’s a criminal or a humanitarian process. The support they need is the same: to be dignified, to be recognised, to be put into the centre of these processes.”
She stressed the importance of centering survivors in every step of the response process, explaining that “it’s very easy to forget them. Once you have done your witness statements, when you’ve taken out whatever information that you need, it’s easy to forget that these issues begin with human beings. So my sole responsibility is to bridge that gap, to remind all the players involved in these processes, from the top to the bottom.”
Jasmine Westendorf, whose research has focused on sexual exploitation and abuse in humanitarian operations, said that thinking about the perpetrators of SEAH as “bad apples”, or “individual men behaving badly”, is unhelpful and problematic. Instead, she noted that SEAH is “systemic across societies globally. These are issues of how societies are organised. Wherever there are imbalances of power, people who hold power will exploit that power.”
Christian Saunders, the top official tasked with improving the UN response to sexual exploitation and abuse, said that focusing on the type of actor involved in SEAH – whether it’s a soldier, humanitarian worker, or community member – can create unnecessary silos that are “for the want of a better word, unhelpful”. He argued for clear, inclusive terminology that recognises the interconnectedness of these issues, but recognised also that “in a lot of countries, [the topic of SEAH]... is clearly a taboo subject to talk about”.
These systemic failures in response mechanisms, from cultural taboos to operational shortcomings, create significant barriers to survivors seeking justice. This was evidenced repeatedly in the CAR investigation – for example when Jeanne* shared her experiences with The New Humanitarian, noting that “If I haven’t gone to see MINUSCA, it is because I don’t know who to turn to, but also because I am afraid.” It was also underlined by Westendorf’s reflections on her research, when she stressed: “People don’t report because they don’t trust the systems or because they don’t know how to report.”
Whether it's about too many (non-working) phone numbers, not being believed, or insinuations of payments received upon assaults happening, the panelists highlighted that the expectation that victims of SEAH have to simply trust the system and report their experiences anyway will never lead to better reporting, let alone trust in the mechanisms.
Once more, localisation is key
The speakers noted that one of the key challenges in addressing SEAH is the failure to align prevention and response frameworks with local contexts. Criticising the tendency to export Global North solutions into the Global South without accounting for cultural, social, and economic differences, Westendorf said that “where organisations are working [on the issue], they’re probably the best to localise the work and understand the critical drivers in particular contexts”. She explained that efforts to “copy and paste” frameworks often result in inappropriate or ineffective approaches.
Nyambeki Orwoba underscored the importance of adapting policies to reflect local realities, pointing out that cultural and social norms must be integrated into the design of any safeguarding strategy. Without this contextualisation, she said, prevention efforts risk alienating the very communities they aim to protect: Effective safeguarding demands collaboration with local actors to ensure that solutions are not only relevant but also sustainable. As an example, Nyambeki Orwoba flagged local, in-country PSEAH networks as key actors that are capable of addressing SEAH through a local lens. However, some end up being “more personality-led”, she noted. If leadership up, down, and across organisations agree to collectively share not just resources but skills and contacts for example, local victims-advocates such as herself could become much more effective in their jobs, she added: “That would go a long way in just ensuring that victims are able to be referred to the right thing at the right time.”
The panelists agreed that many international frameworks around PSEAH, not only in peacekeeping, fail to account for the realities of local communities, imposing overly burdensome compliance requirements on local organisations already struggling with funding shortages. Westendorf explained that these barriers can discourage local actors from participating in safeguarding efforts: “When local organisations feel that compliance frameworks are too burdensome, they often opt out, which fuels the sense of impunity.”
Inconsistent and insufficient funding to supporting survivors
Despite advocacy efforts, funding for victim support remains inconsistent and insufficient, creating significant barriers to survivors accessing the help they need. Besides existing resources being stretched incredibly thin, Nyambeki Orwoba criticised the rigidity of the current system, noting that “we ask victims to trust us as professionals and as organisations, but we feel like we do not have enough trust to place in our victims to give them money without asking for a receipt to buy food”. This, she argued, not only undermines survivors’ dignity, but also delays their recovery.
Saunders echoed the concern over funding shortages that hinder survivor support, noting that “there’s an obligation to victims, and we need to give them the kind of assistance that they need. The fact is, there has never been enough money to support victims.”
“We ask victims to trust us as professionals and as organisations, but we feel like we do not have enough trust to place in our victims to give them money without asking for a receipt to buy food.”
Pervasive failures to allocate sufficient resources mean that survivors of SEAH face not only instances, but cycles of neglect and retraumatisation. As The New Humanitarian’s recent investigation into peacekeeper abuse in CAR showed – alongside the subsequent response from MINUSCA discrediting the experiences of survivors – funding shortages are only one part of the puzzle of truly supporting survivors. Believing them in the first place, as TNH’s Philip Kleinfeld noted, may be a good place to start to disrupt cycles of neglect and retraumatisation.
Where’s the leadership?
Saunders, working across UN bodies on improving their response to SEAH, stressed the importance of engaging leaders at all levels, particularly within peacekeeping missions. “We need commanders believing in this issue, understanding it, and addressing it on a regular basis with the people they oversee,” he noted. Leadership training therefore needs to go beyond superficial compliance to address the root causes of SEAH and foster accountability. Without committed leadership, as Westendorf’s example shows, training alone will never be effective in preventing abuse.
Undoubtedly, strong leadership is critical to tackling SEAH, not only in UN peacekeeping, but also across international interventions and humanitarian responses. Nyambeki Orwoba noted that those at the forefront of helping survivors, including PSEAH focal points, actually face significant barriers in implementing support structures “because they are not in the leadership structure, they cannot get the things they need to actually implement the assessments they’ve done.”
Within the training of peacekeepers, Westendorf also pointed to issues created through problematic leadership. She recounted an example of how dismissive attitudes among senior peacekeepers can derail progress: “All it took was one senior person from the troop contributing country to make a comment about ‘wily women out to entrap peacekeepers,’ and suddenly, the entire training’s message was reversed,” she said. Such attitudes not only undermine training efforts, but also perpetuate a culture of impunity and further entrench patriarchy.
The role of intersectionality in survivor-centred approaches
The conversation also touched on survivors of SEAH facing overlapping vulnerabilities and experiences that can exacerbate harm. Nyambeki Orwoba argued that “intersectionality acknowledges that violence and trauma cuts across diverse experiences. It cuts across race. It cuts across social and economic status. It cuts across sexuality. It affects diverse communities, so if we are acknowledging that, then we are creating mechanisms that are able to acknowledge that diversity.” Building on that, Westendorf added that “the gender landscape is the biggest indicator of risk. Issues like access to sexual and reproductive health services, land rights, and property rights all exacerbate vulnerabilities.”
Accountability beyond zero tolerance?
The discussion made it clear that SEAH is not just a matter of “bad apples”, as Westendorf argued, but a systemic issue rooted in global inequalities and power imbalances. Cautioning against oversimplifying the problem, Westendorf noted in the conversation that “If we just address the manifestation of SEAH, if we buy into the story of one bad apple, then we are unlikely to be able to address the issue in any substantial way.”
Where does accountability fit into all of this? Speakers collectively agreed that accountability is lacking - despite the establishment of reporting systems and investigative bodies, tangible outcomes, such as prosecutions and reparations, remain rare. This sends a dangerous message: Perpetrators can exploit systemic gaps with little consequences, leaving survivors to bear the brunt of the sector’s inadequacies.
The panelists agreed that progress on advancing PSEAH will require bold leadership, truly survivor-centered policies, and a commitment to addressing the structural factors that enable abuse. And, as they also noted, these factors are neither unique to peacekeeping nor to any particular context. In addition to acknowledging that repeated statements of “zero tolerance” have yet to actually lead to zero tolerance, conclusions to draw from the conversation were that the work of PSEAH must integrate local voices, address intersectional vulnerabilities, and invest in prevention if meaningful change is to happen.
