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 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.
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.”
An Associated Press investigation conducted in May found that—despite public protestations of outrage and ignorance—senior WHO management was not only informed of alleged sexual abuse, but was also asked how to handle it. It identified two damning cases involving doctors.
One example: Dr Boubacar Diallo routinely bullied young women into exchanging sex for a lucrative position. But Diallo also knew Director General Tedros—who traveled to Congo 14 times to personally oversee the response:
“Over 2018 and 2019, three Ebola experts, including two who worked for WHO at the time, told the AP they raised concerns about sex abuse in general, and Diallo in particular, with senior managers. But they said they were told that controlling the Ebola outbreak was more important, and two said Diallo was considered ‘untouchable’ because of his relationship with Tedros.”
In both cases, Dr Michel Yao—who led the Ebola effort in Congo—was informed by staff. But Yao did not share the complaints with WHO’s internal investigators or his superiors. He has since been promoted to be director of Geneva’s Strategic Health Operations Department.
Point to note: Various internal documents show that WHO officials were aware and concerned about the problem—with Andreas Mlitzke comparing their employees to “an invading force” and blaming the agency’s “passive approach,” adding: “What prevents us from doing something proactive is our own psychology.”
The commission: admits that the WHO does not properly screen its hires—and cites the AP investigation. And it interestingly points the finger at the very same WHO officials like Mlitzke who raised concerns in the internal documents uncovered by AP. But it assigns no blame to those at the very top—including Tedros—because they had no knowledge of the abuse.
Also excused: emergencies director Dr Michael Ryan who warned at an internal meeting:
“You can’t just pin this and say you have one field operation that went badly wrong. It does reflect a culture as well … This is in some sense the tip of an iceberg.”
Tedros claims that the WHO will take “appropriate disciplinary action.” As of now, four people have been fired and two senior staffers have been placed on administrative leave. But it is not clear if the abusers will face prosecution. Tedros says he plans to refer the rape allegations to Congo and to the home countries in case of foreigners—but these may well lead to a dead end (as they have in similar cases involving UN troops).
And it isn’t clear how the agency plans to help survivors, say local women activists: “WHO must also think about reparation for the women who were traumatized by the rapes and the dozens of children who were born with unwanted pregnancies as a result of the rapes.”
Tedros has only made a vague promise to ensure “all have access to the services they need, including medical and psychosocial support, and assistance for education for their children.”
The bottomline: We don’t think this story needs one. Do you?
You can read the commission’s report in its entirety here, or the highlights over at Washington Post, Al Jazeera and Reuters. We didn’t get into the details or cases of the abuse. So the two New Humanitarian investigations here and here are definitely eye-opening reads. Associated Press’ investigation exposes WHO’s culture of indifference. And you can read the transcript of Tedros’ press conference here.
Indian food products are under scanner for containing ethylene oxide—a known carcinogen.
Read MoreWhat do caste calculations in Karnataka look like? And what do the polls say?
Read MoreIf the BJP loses ground in Karnataka, it will have serious implications for the party, Modi, and Hindutva.
Read MoreBird flu is not new but its recent unprecedented spread is raising fears of a deadly mutation.
Read More