UN peacekeepers in the Central African Republic have committed egregious sexual abuse crimes over the past decade, yet the more than 230 allegations received by the mission (known by its acronym MINUSCA) against over 700 blue helmets are likely just scratching the surface due to significant under-reporting.
That was the conclusion of our latest investigation, published on 16 October in partnership with Le Monde. It detailed testimonies from 19 women who said they were abused by peacekeepers but did not report their cases to MINUSCA because they feared reprisals, didn't know who to contact, or lacked faith that action would be taken.
The UN says it has a “zero tolerance” policy for sex abuse by its personnel, yet after publishing our investigation, MINUSCA issued a statement on 17 October questioning the testimony of the women we had spoken with, instead of offering them its support.
The statement claimed that certain contingents named by the women were never deployed in the localities where the alleged incidents took place. That is despite us having shared the locations of the accused peacekeepers before publication with MINUSCA, which said at the time that it could not confirm or deny whether its personnel had been present during the specified time period.
The women’s accounts were highly detailed, interviews were conducted with a translator fluent in Sango (CAR’s main local language), and testimonies were corroborated by friends and relatives as well as by local NGO workers and through medical records where possible.
After receiving the statement, we immediately asked MINUSCA to account for the discrepancy, clarify which contingents it was referring to, and to let us know if peacekeepers from certain countries may have been present in certain places even if their wider contingents were not.
We also asked MINUSCA this: “Even if any of the women were to have mistaken a nationality, do you agree that this should in no way be used to undermine their broader testimony or to downplay the very real problems their experiences have exposed?”
After three emails, the first sent on 17 October, the mission has still not responded to any of our questions, despite initially saying it would.
While we acknowledge that it can be difficult to definitively prove that a peacekeeper was in a particular place at a particular time in any country, we stand behind our reporting, and behind the 19 women who courageously shared their stories.
The women’s accounts were highly detailed, interviews were conducted with a translator fluent in Sango (CAR’s main local language), and testimonies were corroborated by friends and relatives as well as by local NGO workers and through medical records where possible.
We also stand behind our conclusion that the lack of reporting from the women suggests that the scale of abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers in CAR is likely to be significantly higher than has been officially documented by MINUSCA.
Contrasting statements
MINUSCA’s statement was not the only puzzling comment it made on our investigation.
Ahead of publication we had asked for an on the record interview with the mission’s top official, Valentine Rugwabiza, but were instead sent answers to questions by an unnamed spokesperson.
While the spokesperson provided detailed information on some questions – and the UN made available to us its special coordinator on improving the UN’s response to sexual exploitation and abuse, and its Victims' Rights Advocate – they also made claims that could be construed as displacing blame for sexual violence onto survivors, and onto CAR as a country.
In one comment – included in our published story – the spokesperson wrote that the risk of misconduct is high in MINUSCA, in part because of poverty, illiteracy, the “normalisation of sexual and gender-based violence” in CAR, and because of a lack of basic public infrastructures, services, and institutions.
While it is true that women and girls are especially vulnerable to gendered violence in CAR – the site of conflict, displacement, and colonial brutality over several hundred years – the survivors we spoke to had a very different view of who was to blame.
The statement made no mention of the survivors and expressed no concern for their harrowing experiences, which included several cases of gang rape and incidents where peacekeepers threatened their lives if they did not comply.
“They say [the peacekeepers are] there to protect us, but you can see what they're doing,” 28-year-old Grace*, who said she was raped by four Rwandan soldiers last year, told us. “I lost everything and fled with my children, while they are left in peace.”
MINUSCA’s post-publication statement came as a further surprise to us, especially as it contested survivor testimonies instead of acknowledging the issues raised by the investigation.
The statement made no mention of the survivors and expressed no concern for their harrowing experiences, which included several cases of gang rape and incidents where peacekeepers threatened their lives if they did not comply.
The statement was also puzzling because it clashed with earlier information that MINUSCA had provided to us prior to publication, when we were attempting to triangulate the testimonies of the women.
In many cases, we were able to show that peacekeepers from specific nationalities were present in the towns where the women said they were, using both internal and public MINUSCA maps that showed peacekeeper deployments.
However, because there were some cases where we were not able to do this, we sent MINUSCA a complete list of all 19 allegations, together with the nationalities of the accused peacekeepers, and the locations and time period of the alleged abuse.
We asked MINUSCA the following, ahead of publication: “If you believe there were no peacekeepers from the accused country in the specified area during the specified timeframe, do please let us know.”
MINUSCA responded that it “cannot confirm or reject the claim that a peacekeeper was in a specific location for such a long period of time”, given its personnel can be in uniform or civilians, and given that contingents rotate frequently in remote locations.
Comments from Rwanda
It is unclear why MINUSCA shifted its position after publication, though its statement was released a day after a communiqué from the government of Rwanda, which is the main provider of blue helmets in CAR and a major force in global peacekeeping.
In our investigation, three women alleged that they had been sexually abused by six Rwandan peacekeepers, while two women described sexual abuse by Rwandan soldiers who were likely deployed in a bilateral capacity in CAR.
The Rwandan government described the allegations as “demonstrably false”, denying that its peacekeepers or bilateral forces have been stationed in two of the areas where the women said they were abused.
“I don't think it is normal to do this, and I want to show the whole world what is going on here, what they are doing.”
However, in one of those areas – Ndassima – the presence of Rwandan troops in recent years was confirmed to us by multiple diplomatic and international humanitarian sources.
Regarding the second area, Paoua, while we were not able to find any evidence beyond the women’s testimony – provided in an interview facilitated by a local NGO in the capital, Bangui – of Rwandan troops being deployed there, MINUSCA’s original statement that it “cannot confirm or reject” suggested claims should not be ruled out.
The Rwandan government also denied the allegation of a fruit and vegetable vendor, Jeanne, who said she was raped by a Rwandan peacekeeper who invited her to his base in Bangui last year to calculate how much money he owed her after buying produce.
Rwanda said the allegation could not be true because its peacekeeper bases do not admit unregistered civilians with no official business. The statement provided no reason as to why that rule could not easily be broken.
Jeanne told us that she had tried to report the abuse to two peacekeepers at the entrance of the Rwandan base, but that the soldiers had nodded at her indifferently and even laughed at her.
Though Jeanne did not try to report her abuse again, she told us she wanted her story to be shared as widely as possible. “I don't think it is normal to do this, and I want to show the whole world what is going on here, what they are doing,” she said.
While it is unfortunately not possible to irrefutably corroborate all the claims that survivors of peacekeeper sexual abuse in CAR make, if MINUSCA is to live up to its “zero tolerance” policy, it is imperative that these women are supported and their allegations are not downplayed.
*The names of all survivors have been changed to protect their confidentiality and prevent reprisals.
