|
The TLDR: Earlier this month, we looked at #MeToo allegations within the United Nations. Now, it’s the turn of the World Health Organisation. An explosive independent investigation reveals its workers sexually assaulted and exploited women in Congo during an Ebola epidemic. But here’s what’s important to know: The investigation itself was inadequate—as is the WHO’s response to its report.
Editorial advisory: There are no graphic descriptions of assault, but this is a story about sexual violence.
The gist of the report
- The 35-page report was issued by an independent commission set up by the World Health Organization.
- The commission looked at sexual abuse and assault cases between 2018 and 2020—when more than 2800 WHO workers were deployed in Congo to help combat an epidemic of the Ebola virus.
- It received testimony from 75 alleged victims—63 women and 12 men—who ranged in age from 13 to 43 years, with an average age of around 20.
- The report identifies 83 alleged perpetrators—both Congolese and foreign nationals.
- It verified that at least in 21 cases, WHO employees were involved.
- There were nine allegations of rape. The others involved coercing women to exchange sex for employment—and forcing them to sleep with supervisors in order to keep that job.
- Twenty-nine women and girls became pregnant as a result of the alleged abuse and 22 carried their pregnancies to term.
The WHO’s response: was suitably apologetic—and emotional. Director-general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said the report “makes for harrowing reading,” and repeatedly apologised to the survivors: “What happened to you should never happen to anyone. It is inexcusable. It is my top priority to ensure that the perpetrators are not excused but are held to account."
That’s nice but…: All that rhetoric disguises the fact that the investigation did not uncover the true extent of the abuse. And it says very little about how the WHO intends to deliver justice and true reform.
An incomplete report
The independent commission was set up by WHO after two detailed media investigations—which created a PR debacle for the organisation. Both were conducted by The New Humanitarian in association with the Thomson Reuters Foundation.
Investigation #1: was published in September, 2020. Reporters interviewed 51 women who recounted multiple incidents of abuse. At least 30 of these—the vast majority—involved WHO employees. And they inevitably involved a sex-for-employment barter—targeting lower income women desperate for jobs. They included doctors, health workers, administrators and others. Social workers said that sexual exploitation was a “consistent finding” during the Ebola crisis. One WHO driver said:
“It was so common. It wasn't just me; I'd say that the majority of us chauffeurs drove men or their victims to and from hotels for sexual arrangements like this. It was so regular, it was like buying food at the supermarket.”
The WHO: in response said it was reviewing a “small number” of sexual abuse or exploitation reports in Congo. And it insisted: “We would not tolerate such behaviour by any of our staff, contractors, or partners,” reiterating the agency’s “zero tolerance” policy. But in October, it set up an independent commission to investigate the claims.
Investigation #2: was published in May this year, and spoke to 22 women in the city of Butembo. Fourteen of them identified WHO employees as their abusers. These claims included not just rape, but also horrific instances where the women became pregnant. And one of them died trying to get an abortion—which is illegal in Congo.
The WHO: said it had only identified two women in Butembo as “potentially having had sexually exploitative relationships with individuals connected to WHO.” But officials also admitted:
“Clearly, there is a gap in the number of allegations [reporters] received and those reported. There may be a number of reasons for this–from reporting mechanisms that needed improving, to victims’ reluctance to speak up.”
The big takeaway: The numbers in the report simply don’t add up. The commission seems to have uncovered only the tip of this monstrous iceberg—despite months of on-the-ground investigations. The co-chair of the commission admitted there was “no overlap” between the victims who testified to the media and those it interviewed—acknowledging that this could “point to a larger problem.”
WHO knew what?
|
