U.N. immune from Haiti’s cholera crisis

• Tweet
• 

• Tweet
• 

Last week, the United Nations rejected a multi-billion-dollar damages claim filed on behalf of thousands of cholera victims in Haiti. The U.N.’s reasoning can be summed up in two words — diplomatic immunity. Their decision draws its legal basis from the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, and marks a rare invocation of immunity by the organisation.

The claim was filed in November 2011 by a U.S. human rights group, the Institute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti, which argues that the U.N. failed to properly screen peacekeepers arriving from Nepal, a cholera-endemic country, to help with earthquake relief efforts in 2010. Shortly after their arrival, Haiti — a country which hadn’t seen a confirmed case of cholera for over a century — experienced a catastrophic cholera outbreak. Nearly 800,000 Haitians died and over 630,000 fell ill. Today, one in every 16 Haitians is infected. Though the disease is relatively easy to treat, efforts to quell the outbreak have been stymied by the lack of an adequate sanitation infrastructure.

The human fallout is troubling enough but what’s worse is that the United Nations went on to (unsuccessfully) cover up its sloppiness by discouraging and at times stonewalling reporters and investigators. After years of denying responsibility, despite strong scientific evidence, last week’s announcement by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon struck an additional blow to Haiti — now both coping with a serious public health crisis and rebuilding after the deadly 2010 earthquake. Although the U.N. announced an initiative in December to help eradicate cholera on the island (undoubtedly, in part, to temper criticisms for its role in the outbreak), its proposed $2.27 billion project remains largely unfunded.

While the U.N.’s dismissal of damage claims has been lambasted by human rights groups, some regional observers are arguing that it is a necessary move to “protect all relief efforts in the future.” True, successfully prosecuting an international body as essential as the United Nations could create a dangerous precedent wherein every U.N. soldier, peacekeeper, or public health worker could be arrested or sued (and thereby hinder relief efforts when the next major disaster strikes). But while diplomatic immunity is unarguably a lynchpin needed for international organisations to function, the extent of the U.N.’s impunity is worrisome.

Under the framework of the U.N. Convention cited above, the United Nations is accountable to few bodies other than itself. Concretely, that means that it can’t be sued, leaving little recourse for potential claimants. In the past, cases ranging from sexual harassment to kickbacks were dismissed on the grounds of, no surprise here, diplomatic immunity. But given the extent of the U.N.’s carelessness in Haiti — the country is facing as many as 1,000 cholera deaths a year until the disease is eradicated — that immunity begs the larger question: if the U.N. can avoid culpability with such facility, and more importantly, with complete legality, how does one hold such a powerful international body accountable?

Haitian cholera victims and their families are hoping the answer lies in the courts, either in Haiti, the United States, or Europe. But regardless of the venue chosen, the U.N. will undoubtedly once again claim immunity. If that happens, it’s hard to imagine a judge brave enough to challenge a sixty-year old U.N. convention. But until then, true accountability will remain a very long shot indeed.