Yes, there have been a couple of really damning pieces on the UN, and that's partially to do with the culture of impunity for certain crimes like sexual exploitation and abuse that have become endemic in a number of peacekeeping operations. But it's also to do with member states. Member states need to take responsibility for this as well.
Over the last year, we've seen a range of pronouncements and commitments by the Secretary-General, by the UN system itself. If it implements a large part of those dealing with reporting significantly on incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse and other grave crimes in country reports, moving forward on vetting of troops before they're accepted into peacekeeping missions, and trying to get a much better and more robust system of vetting to make sure that those who have committed previous rights violations are not accepted into these missions....
It has to do with ensuring that there is real coordination. When I talk about a survivor-centred approach to this, that's part of what a good investigation looks like, and that requires coordination, not only with the appointment of the new coordinator on sexual exploitation and abuse, but also at the mission level, making sure that all the different organizations from human rights to UNFPA to DPKO are on the same page and that victims aren't being re-traumatized.
One of the things that's missing from this conversation or hasn't been highlighted as much is the fact that we're asking the UN—and rightly so—to not accept these troops, to make real its conditions by which it will not accept troops that are persistent perpetrators. We need to provide them with options. We need to provide them with the options of other troops. If there's no one to go, what are their options?
To look at what Tony Banbury actually wrote in that piece is to say, without in any way excusing some of the decisions that were made, there need to be stronger options so that troop-contributing countries know that the threat of non-acceptance is real.