Thursday, July 28, 2011 - 5:33 PM
After weeks of internal deliberations, the United Nations recently held a pair of private viewings of a controversial new film, The Whistleblower, which explores U.N. complicity in sex crimes in Bosnia over the past two decades.
Based on real events and reviewed last month by Turtle Bay, the film recounts how U.N. peacekeepers became involved in the illegal sex trade in Bosnia in the late 1990s and the early 2000s. Top officials have been concerned that the film's imminent release -- it hits theaters in Los Angeles and New York on August 5 -- could harm the institution's international reputation. The U.N.'s new women's agency, headed by former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet, arranged the latest screening this week in a U.N. office building in New York.
The horrific incidents depicted in the film occurred well before Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his leadership team arrived at the United Nations. But Ban's tenure is also implicated in the story, if somewhat tangentially: One of the film's real-life heroines, Madeleine Rees, portrayed by the British actress Vanessa Redgrave, was forced out of the United Nations during his first term as Secretary General.
Rees has since filed a grievance with the U.N. internal disputes tribunal in Geneva. She cites her role in exposing U.N. involvement in sexual crimes in Bosnia, as well as the U.N.'s "collusion" in the rendition of six Algerian nationals to Guantanamo Bay, as among the reasons she may have lost her job. A decision on her case is expected any day, Rees and U.N. officials told Turtle Bay.
The U.N.'s top spokesman, Martin Nesirky, declined to comment on the case, saying it would be improper to discuss a case before the tribunal has rendered its judgment. Rupert Colville, a spokesman for the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, also declined to comment, citing legal constraints.
But Rees' application indicates that her superiors at the U.N. High Commissioner's Office had sanctioned Rees, who is gay, for promoting a potentially controversial conference on gay rights. "The catalyst for my removal and a stated ground by OHCHR [The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights], was the side event profiling human rights violations on grounds of sexual orientation," she wrote in her application.
Rees claimed that she had initial backing for the conference from Pillay, who "was very enthusiastic and said she would cosponsor [the event] and speak." But she said she was subsequently excoriated by Pillay's deputy, Kyung-wha Kang, after powerful U.N. members protested. Pillay and her top aides subsequently rallied behind Kang, she claimed.
Rees says she suspects she was being singled out because of the reputation she had earned for standing up for victims rights in Bosnia, where her efforts to press for a crack down on abuses by peacekeepers ran afoul of the U.N.'s political leadership.
She cites a conversation in which Kang warned that top U.N. peacekeeping officials had previously sought her removal from Bosnia. According to Rees, Kang said her history of confrontations with the top brass would make it difficult to consider her for any future field assignments. "If someone of such high rank said this -- it should be taken seriously," Rees claimed Kang told her.
Ban's spokesman, meanwhile, scolded Turtle Bay this week for its coverage of The Whistleblower, challenging our suggestion, offered somewhat tongue in cheek, that the U.N. would prefer people not see the film. He also objected to a line in the story indicating that this was not the kind of film Ban had in mind when he traveled to Hollywood last year to urge filmmakers to make movies that document the U.N.'s good works.
"You didn't ask at the time, but I can tell you now that neither assertion is true. Far from it," Nesirky said.
"We welcome the fact that the film highlights issues that are high on the agenda of the United Nations, including the fight against human trafficking and violence against women," Nesirky added in a statement prepared for Turtle Bay. "We also welcome all efforts to draw attention to such human rights violations."
In fact, the U.N. top leadership had not decided how to respond to the film when Turtle Bay published its story on June 29. A confidential internal memo, dated July 7, from Ivan Simonovic, the U.N.'s top human rights official in New York, reveals that Ban's cabinet was divided over the wisdom of embracing the new film.
A number of U.N. officials, including Bachelet, Pillay, Catherine Bragg, the U.N. Assistant Secretary General for Emergency Relief Operations, and Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. Special Representative for Children in Armed Conflict, argued in favor of confronting the film's harsh portrayal of the United Nations head on, according to the memo, which was leaked to Turtle Bay. Catherine Bragg, the assistant secretary general for emergency relief operations, recommended hosting a public screening of the film. Ban's top advisors, including Vijay Nambiar, also supported a proactive approach.
But the U.N.'s top lawyer Patricia O'Brien and the chief of the U.N. Department of Public information, Kiyotaka Akasaka, proposed ignoring the film. According to Simonovic's memo, Akasaka and O'Brien "thought that a proactive approach, and especially ASG [Assistant Secretary General] Bragg's proposal of a public screening of the movie at the U.N., to be followed by frank discussion, is counterproductive and would contribute to the film's impact. They preferred downplaying the film instead preparing answers on an if-asked basis."
Eventually, the United Nations split the difference, scheduling a discrete viewing for U.N. public relations and peacekeeping officials earlier this month. But Nesirky did not inform the press, saying he did not consider it a public "event," and refused a request from Turtle Bay to identify officials who organized or attended the screening.
"A group of officials in DPI [the Department of Public Information] and DPKO [the Department of Peacekeeping Operations] watched the film last week ahead of a possible screening at the United Nations that would include a panel discussion on the issues depicted in the film," Nesirky said. "We felt it was responsible to see first how the events and issues were portrayed. Those who watched the film were familiar with events in the movie; peacekeeping as well as efforts to stamp out misconduct by U.N. personnel, including sexual exploitation and abuse."[*see note below]
Tuesday's screening by Bachelet's agency marked another concession to the officials who were advising a proactive approach. It also happened to coincide with a screening organized by the U.N. press corps.
Follow me on Twitter @columlynch
*Nesirky announced in a press briefing before this article was published that the U.N. welcomed the U.N. press clubs' screening of the film and had decided "to organize a discussion or other events related to topics raised in the film" later this summer. However, the U.N. has not organized its own public screening. Turtle Bay regrets that in an earlier version it misspelled Ms. Kang's name and mistakenly identifed Patricia O'Brien as Catherine.
Larysa Kondracki's pitch to CBS
I'm sure this film is director Larysa Kondracki's pitch to CBS for yet another generic version of CSI, albeit one with gratuitous and unnecessary photos of rape victims so as if to seem edgy. Okay, maybe not CSI, but at least one of those generic crime shows where one or two good actors surround themselves with cheese-ball script writers, reviews, hammy actors, clichéd musical score cues, rushed plot development that leaves no time for setting any sort of interesting atmosphere, and most of all, predictability.
Suspicious- Janine Reilly or Adam Cuttler?
@"Janine Reilly"- your comment is almost exactly the same as one I viewed last night from IMDb.com, here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896872/usercomments and written by an "Adam Cuttler". Forgive me if I suggest that you are driven by a political agenda in making/recycling this comment, and that you perhaps wish to discredit the movie and discourage people from watching it. I attended the DC premiere of the movie last night, and found it to be compelling and substantial, and far from being a "made-for-TV movie". The movie is hardly generic, as it is based on a true (and truly horrifying) story of the trafficking of young women, together with the complicity of the UN and peacekeeping contractors in this trafficking.
In contrast to your assertions, I found the director's restraint in the trafficking and rape scenes to be admirable and not at all gratuitous. I thought the scenes conveyed an extremely disturbing, chilling portrayal of what occurred, and it was necessary to be graphic to a certain degree- the movie is, after all, about young women being trafficked and raped. And with regard to other aspects of the movie, Kathy Bolkovac, whose story inspired the movie, asserted at last night's screening that the director actually toned down the level of corruption that took place in reality. If this is the case, and I believe Ms. Bolkovac to be genuine, then the story is all the more horrifying. It seems that not nearly has been done in the last decade or so to strengthen mechanisms to ensure accountability within UN peacekeeping operations. Meanwhile, Western firms are making billions of dollars in profits from sending contractors to take part in these operations, while the UN and the State Department look the other way.
I urge everyone to see this movie for yourself.
That's deceptive and just f*cking tacky! Who are you and what's your agenda? Your posts here have been weird for some time. Explain yourself, "Janine."
There's no need for such use of language.
I think you all lost the real focus here. It's about trading women in Bosnia while at war. As if the war itself wasn't enough. Really sad if you ask me.
And I certainly don't agree with you Janine, afterall, it's only a movie.
UN = just another pretentious gang of low lifes
I had to laugh when I read the line, "could harm the institution's international reputation." What international reputation? The reputation that is organization is a bunch of pandering, corrupt beaurocrats with little real power? This is yet another sickening example of the pathos of this pathetic and pointless exercise in monkeying around with international affairs. I'm so sorry for the victims of these scumbag "peace keepers."
i am looking forward to seeing the movie for myself, hopefully some of the more racy threads to the story are just artistic licence. the UN is a valuable global policeman, and it would be a dreadful shame if it did not uphold the highest values and ethos. And partly because i am looking forward to two hours of ms. weisz and the twinkling diamond that is ms. bellucci!
The immunity of international organizations from court jurisdiction into personnel matters precludes the courts from considering claims that staff have been retaliated against for disclosing illegality and corruption. Administrative tribunals established to adjudicate staff grievances in international organizations have come under scrutiny for lack of independence and failure to meet fundamental standards of fairness. The United Nations was damaged in 2005 following revelations of corruption in its Oil-for-Food Programme, procurement and sexual harassment scandals. In 2009 the United Nations' Administrative Tribunal was reformed by the creation of a new United Nations Dispute Tribunal and United Nations Appeal Tribunal. The administrative tribunals in other agencies of the UN system also undertook various reform measures. But the practical effect of these reforms has been negligible. Whistleblowers in international organizations are ostensibly protected by whistleblower protection policies. These policies, while introduced with great fanfare, offer scant reassurance to staff that apparent protections in the policies really work in practice. Instead, these policies serve as dead letter boxes where whistleblowers are relieved of their complaints. The institutional machinery created by the policies runs interference to prevent whistleblowers dedicated to the missions of their agencies from holding their institutions accountable for solving whistleblowers' complaints.
Tell that line about "real change" to the hundreds of military members still being kicked out of the services for being gay. Wasn't it The Great One who vowed to end "Don't Ask, Don't Tell?" One would think with bree olson Sinclair's book selling copies despite a mainstream media blackout - he's the Minnesota man who claims he had sex and smoked crack cocaine with Illinois State Sen. Obama on several occasions "back in the day," - the President of the United States might be a little more charitable to people losing their pensions and jobs, not for what they do, but who they are.We have strong opinions, colored by our religious beliefs, in regard to this policy. But a promise is a promise, and the homosexuals are starting to wise up and hesitate before automatically writing a check to Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrats. The elevation of North to four-star rank is great news for Maj. Jill Metzger, awarded a 100% "disability" pension. She ran in both the Air Force and Marine Corps Marathons last year. North is the pampered poster girl's chief protector. You don't have to wonder too hard "why."This back-stabbing general, who destroyed the careers of two Air Force officers despite the recommendation of his investigating officer they were blameless - seems the "men in blue" duked it out with a belligerent punk from Blackwater in Afghanistan, and Gen. North, always eager to genuflect in the direction of the White House, tossed his pilots overboard to get some brownie points. Metzger's alleged crimes: false official statement, AWOL, disobeying a direct order, adultery, fraternization and conduct unbecoming an officer (not counting the millions of taxpayer dollars wasted on the search for her imaginary abductors in Kyrgzystan) don't bother Gary North one bit. Why, he was in top spirits when she returned to Manas AFB via the main bunker.
The United States who controls NATO like a puppeteer pulling all strings wanted to make an example out of Serbia and all of its diaspora throughout all of Yugoslavia. NATO pilots who did the cowardly bombings were primarily Dutch, American, and British pilots flying constant sorties for 78 days. It is a known fact that by aiding the KLA and other Albanian terrorists within Kosovo, this would soften Serbian power and morale by providing Kosovar Albanians with weapons, logistical support, food, and other supplies, while Kosovar Serbs were slaughtered while their churches, homes, and businesses were burnt to dust. This would also lay claim to US power within Serbian territory by establishing an illegal base known as Bondsteel. You mention US foreign policy! It does not exist whenever it comes down to American interests and control over countries fighting in civil wars or when petrolium is at stake. RIO Bosniak and Kosovar Albanians who are predominately Islam and backed and funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia, it would have been political suicide if the US backed the Serbs and not the muslims..
The United States who controls NATO like a puppeteer pulling all strings wanted to make an example out of Serbia and all of its diaspora throughout all of Yugoslavia. NATO pilots who did the cowardly bombings were primarily Dutch, American, and British pilots flying constant sorties for 78 days. It is a known fact that by aiding the KLA and other Albanian terrorists within Kosovo, this would soften Serbian power and morale by providing Kosovar Albanians with weapons, logistical support, food, and other supplies, while Kosovar Serbs were slaughtered while their churches, homes, and businesses were burnt to dust. This would also lay claim to US power within Serbian territory by establishing an illegal base known as Bondsteel. You mention US foreign policy! It does not exist whenever it comes down to American interests and control over countries fighting in civil wars or when petrolium is at stake. RIO Bosniak and Kosovar Albanians who are predominately Islam and backed and funded by Iran and Saudi Arabia, it would have been political suicide if the US backed the Serbs and not the muslims..
Longtime Washington Post correspondent Colum Lynch reports on all things United Nations for Turtle Bay.
Read More
(12)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE