U.N. Watch: The sexual-abuse script |

U.N. Watch: The sexual-abuse script

Another allegation of sexual abuse involving United Nations peacekeepers. Another fumbled attempt at U.N. damage control. And another resignation by a top U.N. official.

The script is all too familiar in the latest scandal, allegedly involving French soldiers last year in the Central African Republic. Reportedly young boys were sexually abused by troops assigned to protect civilians. Flavia Pansieri, deputy high commissioner for human rights, who reportedly took no action at the time of the allegations, has resigned, citing health reasons, according to The New York Times.

And as often is the case in these scandals, a U.N. whistle-blower, who passed along a copy of an internal report to French diplomats, was suspended but later reinstated and remains under investigation.

The boys’ testimony was collected by U.N. staff in May 2014. Ms. Pansieri, a U.N. veteran, never explained why she apparently did nothing until the following March — eight months after the report was leaked.

Exposing bureaucratic bungling — or getting stung by it — is a career killer at the U.N. Which is why it’s tough to put much faith in Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s appointed panel, which is supposed to review how the U.N. handles sexual abuse allegations against peacekeepers.

These unrelenting atrocities have dogged U.N. peacekeepers for years. Actually holding some feet to the fire begins with the U.S. withholding its substantial share of the U.N.’s peacekeeping funding.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.