21/02/2018 HARDtalk

in the UK on Tuesday.

It has just gone half past four in

the morning. It is now time for

HARDtalk.

Welcome to HARDtalk. I am Stephen

Sackur. There is something

distressing about the revelations of

sexual explication and gross

misconduct inside one of the world's

best known humanitarian aid

organisations. Oxfam is at the

centre of a storm of investigations.

Now the entire aid sector is under

scrutiny for safeguarding failures

which appear to go back decades. My

guess is Amira Malik Miller. She is

an experienced aid worker who

experienced misconduct first hand

and is now prepared to speak out. So

what went wrong and why? -- my

guest. Amira Malik Miller, welcome

to HARDtalk.

Thank you. You work for

the Swedish government.

But how

expensive is your experience of aid

work in the field?

I worked in the

humanitarian assistance sector for

over 15 years. I have been based in

Liberia and West Africa. I have done

a lot of work in Sudan. I have

travelled extensively. I have had a

lot of experience and travelled

extensively and covered some of the

world's biggest humanitarian crises

over the past 15 years.

Now you know

there is a huge amount of scrutiny

on the humanitarian aid sector

because of revelations, allegations

of serious sexual misconduct,

harassment, exploitative behaviour,

and the revelations focused on

Haiti. But now we're hearing of

other allegations in other places.

When this story broke in few days

go, were you surprised?

I was

shocked when I first saw the

headlines, because I recognise the

man who was on those photos. And I

felt it was very unfair the way that

Oxfam was betrayed. Because I knew

that I had part one and part two of

that story. And I felt it was

unfair. But I was not shocked. I

knew that this was going on and so I

felt that I needed to say something.

Many aid workers have actually found

it very difficult to speak out. Many

have spoken anonymously. You have

chosen to go public with us. So I

think we need to go into a little

bit of detail about your experience

with one particular individual who,

as you say, has now been named. The

allegations surrounding him and his

work with Oxfam in Haiti. But let's

go back to Liberia. Was it 2004?

It

was 2004. This was really my first

job. I was excited and grateful. I

had been out before previously on

trainee positions in Sudan. But this

was my first real job after

graduating and is doing a masters.

I'd been working in development and

human rights. They really want to

get into human rights- the

humanitarian assistance sector. I

got a job with Miller, an agency in

Britain.

-- Merlin. How old were you

at the time?

I was 24 at the time, I

think.

So you go out and meet your

colleagues from Merlin. What they

generally older, and where they

generally male?

Not all of them, but

the senior management team

absolutely were. But not all of

them. There were other female staff,

others in my age group, as well, but

I was in the most junior position. I

had gone out after having been

briefed in London. I heard it a few

whispers of things happening in

Liberia. I made it clear during

those chats that that was not

something that I would be OK with if

it happened, and if it was to do

with sexual misconduct. I went out

and was met by this individual at

the airport.

And I think we need to

name him, he is a Belgian national,

called Roland van Hauwermeiren.

Right.

Now, it was he the director

of operations in Liberia at the

time?

It was the country director.

My job was partly to be his

assistant but also to be a grants

manager. I shared an office with

them and so I knew his schedule and

so on. He picked me up from the

airport, which Apple was a little

bit odd. But it was a nice chat and

so on. -- which I thought was. He

did a phone call and I thought they

were talking about me. There was

something said about a green light.

I did not reflect so much on that at

that particular moment, but I have

since. I felt that he was checking

out, see what kind of person I was,

and would I be a problem...

A

problem in what sense? Taking

exception to his behaviour?

Possibly.

Because I think we need to

talk about what the heavies you saw

from him and other members of the

Merlin NGOs staff on the ground in

Liberia. Because this individual has

since been connected to events in

Haiti. -- Merlin NGO.

What I saw was

not him. It was another member of

staff. And we were living in two

different compounds then. I was

living in one called London. In most

of the staff were living there. He

was living in another compound with

one or two other staff members,

Roland van Hauwermeiren. I got up

one morning and went into the

kitchen. There were other people

around as well. I went into the

kitchen and found one of the senior

staff members there with quite young

Liberian girl. -- quite a young

labour and gold. I do know she was

over 16 or 18, but possibly. What I

saw was something I was

uncomfortable with and I did not

think was appropriate. And I

confronted a person there. -- quite

a young Liberian girl. There was a

lot of touching and so on. I thought

that was inappropriate and went

against our code of conduct. And

that is why I confronted that men

straightaway, and why I then, the

following Monday, broke into head

office and said " This has happened

and I am not coupled with this, and

I expect you to do something". -- I

am not comfortable with this. And

they did. They got back and checked

on it and said somebody was coming

back quickly, and somebody did. I

felt supported. It took about ten

days to come down with a team from

London HQ to investigate it. At that

point, well previous...

Did you

confront your direct boss, Roland

van Hauwermeiren. What did you say

to him?

I did us anything to him at

that time. There were about three or

four men involved in this, I

thought. They suspected that I had

reported it, but they went short.

They knew that a team was coming

down from London.

Did you believe

the local girls were prostitutes

that you saw?

I believed that there

was some sort of something that was

definitely an imbalance of power. I

don't think there would have been

there just out of wanting to be

there. I think that they were

expecting something. Whether it was

paid sex or not, I have no proof. I

certainly felt that it was

inappropriate and went against the

rules, our code of conduct, our

security rules and so on, at that

point. It was still very strict,

then. In Liberia, this was just

after the civil war, of course. What

I wanted to say is that the time

that it took the London team to come

down, these individuals absolutely

worked on me. I was under

surveillance, almost. Someone was

almost always with me, and they had

private chats to me, and try to make

out that this was not something odd,

that it was normal, and that they

had not done anything wrong, and so

on.

Did you feel from that moment

that there was a sense of

entitlement? That they were in a

tough location, doing a tough job,

and consorting that as I would sound

flippant, but I don't know the right

word. But having sex with young

women on location, could be seem to

feel that they were entitled to do

that?

Hard to tell. But they try to

make it sound normal and something

to expect and something that I was

being silly to react against.

Absolutely.

You were a whistleblower

in a way. Did you feel intimidated

that they were with these members of

staff and they were clearly worried

that you were blowing the whistle on

their activities back to head

office? Was that intimidating?

A

little bit. I never felt afraid, but

is because I was so young. I don't

know. But I didn't. I felt watched.

But there were other people around

that I could confide in that have

later become so because -- that have

later become so my closest friends.

I did not feel that way, but I

definitely felt that I had to -

well, I felt that they were trained

to convince me that nothing had

happened, and that I was

overreacting. -- they were trying to

convince me. So where to buy time

and waited for the investigation

team.

There was no huge drama, but

as the result of the team coming in

to Liberia, Mr Roland van

Hauwermeiren was removed from the

location, I believe. I think he

ended his work with Merlin at that

time.

Yes. And then other people

stepped out and said that what they

had seen and came forward with that

information, and so what happened

was, unfortunately, he was - he

could go on his own. He probably

offered to resign and could go

quietly. The others could stay. One

had to - the wonder they confronted

had to give me a personal,

face-to-face apology, but then could

continue his contract and go on. So

I guess at that point I was

disappointed, and maybe starting to

doubt that they had done the - not

that I had done the right thing, but

started to think that I had

overacted a little bit, and this was

something... But at that point did

not think that they would get jobs

again. Interesting. Because in

essence, the degree to which Mr

Roland van Hauwermeiren was able to

make a career in the international

NGOs world, despite having had this

problem with Merlin, at which point

he had to leave a job under a cloud.

-- NGO. But then we see that he

appeared in Chad working for Oxfam,

and in a strange quizzes, you were

working for the development agency

that were approached by Oxfam for

some funding. You saw that this

Belgian individual was in charge of

the particular mission in Chad, and

you want your superiors that this

was not selling that Sweden should

be putting their money into. And yet

Sweden did.

£750,000. Right. So what

happened there is a lack of the

proposal on my desk and I reacted

because I saw very quickly that he

was the country director. I went to

my then boss, the head of the

humanitarian assistance unit, who

reacted immediately, and was

appalled. He took me straight to the

legal team, and I remember several

meetings with the legal team.

They

all reacted in the way that I would

expect them to. They could very

seriously and were appalled and

wanted to do something about it.

Again, I felt listens to, despite

the fact that I was in a junior

position and was new to the

development agency. I felt that I

was supported and listen to. By the

reaction I got from both of my --

both my boss at the time and the

legal department, I felt that was

reported. But I would not be

surprised now if it was not.

But

they still divided to put money into

the Chad project. -- Pistol decided.

But here is an individual who is now

establishing a reputation among some

who have worked with him, and yet

there is no red flag against his

name. And so if we move on from Chad

and get to Haiti, where this story,

in recent days, has come to a head,

here, again, is Mr Roland van

Hauwermeiren, who is now country

director of Oxfam's operations after

the earthquake in 2011. They really

big job and a huge amount of

pressure. And again, what we now

know is that Oxfam were faced with a

plethora of allegations of staff

procuring prostitutes, parties in

Oxfam accommodation, other

allegations concerning pornography,

harassment of staff, and bullying,

with its individual at the centre of

it, yet again.

That is unfortunate, there are two

different questions. Is it wrong for

donors to donate? In some respects,

maybe, but it should be thoroughly

assessed and reported, of course.

But that programme could still have

been a very vital programme. As

Merlyn's were in Liberia, it was

supporting half of the country 's

healthcare and so I wouldn't argue

for cutting funding to good critical

humanitarian response programme.

That is an interesting point.

In

Haiti, what we have is Oxfam, it the

end, it appears, covering up the

truth about what had happened in

their mission to stop it again, I am

interested to know whether all of

this surprises you. Whether this is

what you might have expected, given

your experiences in the sector?

It

doesn't surprise me. I suppose there

is a very strong weakness in HR

practices, absolutely. I think

Roland Van Hauwermeiren is a very

interesting particular case study in

that he has been able to manipulate

the system for a very long time, he

has obviously chosen to move around

from different countries between

organisations. He knows that it

hasn't been tracked properly and he

has manipulated that.

It should be

said that he denies these specific

allegations of using prostitutes, he

says yes, I did have sexual

relations but with women who were

honest, dignified women. Said the

allegations are there and they are

multiple, he has denied the point

about prostitutes. But in the end,

this is terribly damaging, isn't it?

It is damaging not just for Oxfam

but the entire world of humanitarian

aid.

Absolutely and that is what I

think we have to recognise, he is a

particular bad case that has been

able to manipulate systematically

but absolutely, it exposes a problem

that is much bigger than that and is

systemwide and it goes into our

failure to protect and safeguard

people and staff, actually. And one

of the main challenges is to improve

quite weak HR practices in terms of

how we recruit and how we vet staff

and also in terms of how we pass on

information. And I think there is a

real issue there with NGOs, and

other organisations wanting and

knowing that they will be condemned

in the public and wanting to protect

their image. Also, a real fear of

legal action in terms of defamation

and so they give sometimes

references, probably, that confirm

that people had been employed in

certain capacities at certain times

and it has a much more than that.

But they don't give stronger...

They

don't put the red warning flags out.

You indicated to me that you felt

this was systemic and this is a much

wider issue then Oxfam. I believed

in recent days, then you chief has

said they had put his six more

reports of what individuals regard

as unacceptable behaviour inside the

organisation. We have had other

NGOs, also now, it seems, involved

in unacceptable exploitative de Gea

is. Is this the MeToo moment for the

aid industry?

I think it is, and I

hope it is for our sector. Again, as

I said, Rowland is a particular case

and perhaps we need that to start

the discussion. But from what I have

heard from talking to friends

working in the sector and former

colleagues and so many accounts over

the past week, this is a real

problem, it is systemic at it

happens on all levels in this

industry, as it does in other

sectors as well. But we need to

challenge this and it needs to come

to light and this is the opportunity

to do that.

Are there today still

individuals acting with impunity in

countries where women and children

are extraordinarily vulnerable?

Absolutely there is. Maybe not of

the kind that this particular case

has shown, but absolutely. It is a

widespread and systemic issue, some

call it even endemic.

How

depressing. For all of those people

who routinely give money to aid

organisations, you're telling me

that actually these organisations

have an endemic problem with abuse.

Yes, but still keeping in mind that

this is the vast majority of people

working in this sector, whether

international or local staff, are

not doing this. And so we eat to

really shine a light on this problem

now, raise it and really find out

what is the problem and how do we

best address it? I would absolutely

not argue for cutting any funding, I

hope that this media coverage and

donor reaction does not lead to a

further distrust within the sector

because it is so important that we

don't undermine the response

capacity that we have.

There has to

be consequences. The UK government

is reconsidering whether it will

give its £32 million per year to

Oxfam, Ricky Patel said that all

future funding must be subject to

the aid sector, in commenting the

highest standards of child

protection, investigating all

allegations and securing

prosecutions of those responsible

and if they don't make the grade,

they shouldn't get the aid.

I think

it is important to recognise that a

lot has been done. This has come to

light several times over the past

ten years and a lot has been done.

There are policies and procedures

and guidelines in place, there is

code of conduct. But both in terms

of whistleblowing and safeguarding

both staff and beneficiaries. I

think this knee-jerk reaction, that

this media coverage and maybe some

donor responses as well give the

public, in terms of undermining the

confidence in humanitarian

assistance work, which is critical

for many many people around the

world, is unfortunate and I think we

need to be ensured that our action

is actually motivated why a real,

kind of, emphasis and change and

change that is needed.

Are you

implying to me that you believe some

people might be playing politics

with this? Those in political

circles who think that actually

giving 0%% or whatever it is of GDP

to international aid is too much and

it is a mistake and it gets misused?

I think there is a risk that this

all adds up supporting an anti- aid

agenda, absolutely. I would say that

we need to be careful not to go in

that direction and instead try to

see what we can really do to address

this systemwide approach. And

actually, any other response to this

issue would continue that kind of

culture of impunity and a lack of

transparency because it kind of

shows that organisations when they

come out and are accountable, which

they should do, they are punished

for it. I have been working for acid

donor for a long time and I think

when alarm bells should be ringing

is when you get zero cases, zero

incidents.

A final point. We are

talked about the trust lost with

donors, but what about the trust

lost on the ground with the people

that aid organisations are meant to

help. A final thought on this. This

is what the Haitian Minister said

the other day: These people, from

the international aid groups, today

they look like mercenary is. That is

an extraordinarily gaming thing to

hear, isn't it? After 20 years in

the age business.

It is and it is

sad and I don't think it is the case

for the sector as a whole. I really

think that this is the time to start

to listen, to bring everything to

light, to listen to our staff, our

beneficiaries, our local

organisations that are working in

partnership with us. Bring it to

light now and make it a priority to

address it throughout the sector and

see what solutions we can come up

to. There is a lot that has been

done, a lot that has been said

already. We need to just prioritise

giving the last bit.

We have to end

it there. Amira Malik Miller, thank

you so much for being on HARDtalk.

Thank you to having the.

Thank you.

-- thank you for having me.