‘They were just enjoying love and she was making money’: A qualitative analysis of UN peacekeeper sexual interactions in the Democratic Republic of Congo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peacekeeper-perpetrated sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) is widespread. While the United Nation's (UN) zero-tolerance policy prohibits all exploitative and abusive peacekeeper sexual interactions with host community members, its implementation has been criticized for failing to recognize women's agency and survival needs by oversimplifying the complex and dynamic romantic and transactional elements. This study aims to demonstrate that not all sexual interactions between peacekeepers and host community members are equally exploitative or abusive. METHODS: The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) was chosen for this study due to its longstanding history of UN peacekeeping operations, documented cases of peacekeeper-perpetrated SEA, and socio-economic and gendered inequalities that contribute to transactional and coercive sexual interactions. To provide evidence that not all sexual interactions between peacekeepers and host community members are equally exploitative and/or abusive and to better understand how local community members perceive these sexual interactions at the intersection of romance and mutually beneficial transactions, we analysed micro-narrative data (n = 1822) from the eastern DRC. RESULTS: Four prominent types of sexual interactions were identified: romantic, transactional sex, sex work, and sexual assault/harassment. The characteristics of the interactions highlighted the influence of structural factors, economic need, and gendered power. Community perceptions around initiation, intermediaries, and beneficiaries varied and were, by construct, at odds with the UN's conceptualization of sexual interactions between their staff and beneficiaries as exploitative and/or abusive due to the power dynamics inherent in such relationships. CONCLUSIONS: The zero-tolerance policy fails to recognize the nuanced range of diverse and dynamic sexual interactions between UN peacekeepers and host community members in the DRC. It is recommended that SEA reporting measures be reconfigured in light of this complexity, and we suggest a non-binary method of measuring the degree of exploitation and abuse. Accepting that sexual interactions between host community members and UN peacekeepers represent varying levels of exploitation and abuse may improve interventions to better prevent and address peacekeeper-perpetrated SEA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".