Increased awareness of abuses and inequalities has recently shifted public attention towards international human rights. The United Nations (U.N.) defines human rights as “rights inherent to all human beings [to which] everyone is entitled…without discrimination” [1]. However, this absolute declaration morphs into an abstract ideal when contrasted with the reality of women’s rights globally. While the concept of human rights is fundamental, the manner in which these rights are invoked and interpreted can be used as a guise for perpetuating injustices.

          A particularly harrowing manifestation of this dissonance was in 2018, when the world’s second-largest Ebola outbreak struck the Democratic Republic of the Congo (D.R.C.). To curb the spread of the epidemic, the U.N. Security Council deployed personnel from the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) to the D.R.C. While aid workers were applauded for implementing medical initiatives efficiently, their success was undermined by the humanitarian crimes that transpired during their on-the-ground presence. However, it was only in 2020 that these transgressions emerged into public discourse, when Robert Flummerfelt with The New Humanitarian released an investigative report titled: “More than 50 women accuse aid workers of sex abuse in Congo Ebola crisis” [2].

          The irony of this incident warrants further discussion. The public frequently perceives the U.N. as a moral compass that helps countries uphold human rights as they navigate the tumultuous sea of world politics. For example, U.N. official and Indian politician Shashi Tharoor describes the U.N. as the “antidote to the tendency to disregard the problems of the periphery” [3]. However, the actions demonstrated by the U.N.’s aid workers contradict this sentiment. They not only failed to address “the problems of the periphery,” but outright prolonged them. While it obviously does not condone these behaviors, the language and persona the U.N. adopted to frame peacekeeping efforts in the D.R.C. inadvertently perpetuated these injustices: molding an inequitable and dismal reality for women.

Resolution Rhetoric

          When the outbreak first unfolded, the U.N. General Assembly outlined its intended response to the Ebola crisis in Resolution 2439. Throughout the resolution, the authors employ righteous and noble language to convey their acknowledgement of the situation’s gravity and their intention to remedy it. In the first paragraph, they recognize that the “epidemic is occurring in the context of much wider humanitarian needs,” indicating that they are aware of societal issues, like gender inequality, that exacerbated the Ebola crisis [4]. The authors proceed to “[condemn] all attacks against civilians” [5]. Through these admonishments, they morally elevate themselves above the perpetrators of violence, implying that they, on the contrary, intend to do no harm. At the end of the document, they “[stress] the importance of the full, active, and meaningful engagement of women in the development of such responses” [6]. The sentiment in this statement suggests that they hope to empower women by helping them participate more actively in improving their afflicted communities.

          However visionary these intentions may appear, they were evidently not substantiated by the aid workers’ actions. While this may raise suspicion about the resolution’s authenticity, it cannot be assumed that the actions of U.N. employees reflect the institution’s true agenda. Rather than blaming the U.N. for directly causing this crisis, attention should be redirected to how its use of language and desire to preserve its reputation rendered it ineffective at holding these individuals accountable for their wrongdoings.

The United Nations Halo Effect

          However, the gap between rhetoric and reality is not exclusive to this particular incident. For similar reasons, non-governmental organizations (N.G.O.) have come under criticism amid recent discourse on the N.G.O. halo effect. By framing interventions as moral duties, similarly to the U.N., an N.G.O. derives legitimacy from its commitment to maintaining these ethical standards. Researchers at the University of Texas at Dallas and the Rotterdam School of Management at Erasmus University explain how “ethical blind spots” within an N.G.O. may fly under the radar because of the halo effect, which can give rise to or justify the existence of unethical behaviors [7]. While this description specifically applies to non-governmental organizations, it extends to intergovernmental organizations like the U.N. The U.N. is similarly incentivized to maintain a virtuous public image. This “halo” portrays the U.N. as irreproachable, shielding it from public scrutiny even in light of incongruous evidence. Consequently, even when allegations of illicit behavior arise, they are diluted by righteous rhetoric. These claims elicit disbelief because their verity suggests that the U.N. violates the same principles it avows to uphold. Therefore, the same dialogue that ordains the U.N. as an advocate of human rights silences its victims.

Behind the Silence

          An alarming consequence of this complex dynamic is the lack of public exposure these abuses receive, especially compared to the U.N.’s successes. In Flummerfelt’s article, U.N. Children’s Fund spokesman Jean-Jacques Simon mourns how sexual exploitation in the D.R.C. is acutely under-reported, despite the supposed efforts of the U.N. to bring these abuses to light [8]. This epidemic of under-reporting stems from the D.R.C.’s deeply patriarchal economic, political, and social environment. Congolese women face economic injustices, lack almost any political representation in the government, and are extremely vulnerable to gang rape [9]. This fear of exacerbating existing inhumane conditions dissuades female victims from articulating their grievances and publicizing these abuses, resulting in severe under-reporting. The U.N. indirectly benefits from this dynamic, even though the suppression of human rights abuses contradicts everything it represents as an institution. A self-enforcing cycle emerges: victims’ concerns are neglected, enabling the U.N. to maintain its moral high ground, which silences these women further, perpetuating the same economic, political, and social barriers the U.N. publicly condemns.

          The U.N.’s incentives in concealing these allegations may have led it to actively stunt media coverage as well. These interests are evident in the hypocrisies that appear in prior humanitarian missions. In 2014, the U.N. sent peacekeeping forces to the Central African Republic amidst ongoing intrastate conflict. The following year, U.N. official Anders Kompass blew the whistle on the abuses French peacekeepers had committed against local children, leaking confidential information to French authorities in response to the U.N.’s inability to stop these atrocities [10]. However, investigations by France only began after Kompass exposed these classified documents to French officials [11]. The U.N.’s inaction is unsettling. Not only was it aware of the allegations, but it had the power to hold those individuals accountable for their actions. It is within the U.N.’s authority to “waive functional immunity that protects U.N. personnel by referring the alleged rapist peacekeepers to member states for criminal prosecution” [12]. Despite the U.N.’s ability to punish wrongdoers, its fear of risking its noble reputation ultimately overrides its moral obligations to the children of the Central African Republic and the women of the D.R.C.

Regretful Recovery

          However, history suggests that these organizations can recover from such scandals. In 2018, aid workers from Oxfam were accused of sexual exploitation in Haiti amidst post-earthquake development projects [13]. The organization was held accountable economically through the British government’s withdrawal of funding and socially through the temporary loss of public support. While Parliament condemned and punished Oxfam for its actions through financial means, this response was inadequate. It merely repaired the negative shadow Oxfam’s actions cast onto Parliament’s reputation, failing to address Oxfam’s fundamental flaws. Parliament’s superficial response falsely implies that these abuses are caveats to the status quo rather than direct consequences of it. Instead of seeking to reform structural imbalances in humanitarian missions, the government treats the issue as an isolated mistake and an excusable lesson learned for Oxfam. This approach suggests that missteps in humanitarianism are easily amendable, restoring public faith and reassuring organizations that the moral high ground they previously held is still within reach.

          Faults within organizations, like the U.N. and Oxfam, extend beyond their individual actions and structures. The global glorification of humanitarian assistance must be reevaluated to account for this superficial morality that allows these organizations to maintain legitimacy while perpetuating injustices. It begins by recognizing the tactics they use to manipulate their language and persona in order to convey themselves as guardians of human rights. Let the case of the D.R.C. serve as a sign: it is time to look beyond the U.N.’s thick smokescreen of performative probity.