Now what about that Lubbers guy?

(Note: no links because every goddamn Dutch online newspaper archive is subscription only. And that goes for you too, mr. Independent. But if you can read Dutch and have access to LexisNexis, you really don't need this post.)

Lubbers. Is he a macho pervert? Or is he the victim of some dastardly ploy?

The allegation:

On March 18 2003, after a meeting had ended...

...without a word, he abruptly put both of his hands on her waist ... pulled her back towards him and took a step forward and pushed his groin to her buttocks and held her briefly in that position.

Too shocked to say anything, she left the room. So says the confidential report by OIOS (Office for Internal Oversight Services), the UN's watchdog, that was leaked to the Independent.

Now I don't want to belittle the seriousness of all this, but it isn't very juicy, is it? I'd rather write about more titillating stuff, but in the end you go to blog on the sex scandal you have, so a 65-year old man humping a 51-year old woman it is.

But let me lay it out for you:


Things pointing towards the macho pervert theory:


(I) Because the woman, Cynthia B., well, said so. Unless there's reason to assume she's lying, her statement is pretty damning.

(II) During the investigation, four other women claimed that Lubbers had harassed them.

(III) For years Lubbers has had a reputation of being a ladies man, a charmeur. Former Minister Westerterp has even alleged this was the reason the Americans vetoed Lubbers' appointment to Secretary General of NATO back in 1996, even though Lubbers had the backing of Germany, France and Britain. Westerterp claims the CIA's background check on Lubbers personal life tipped the scales against him. Even more damning, my father has worked briefly for Lubbers in the 70s (when Lubbers was Minister of Economic Affairs) and he wouldn't put it past Lubbers.

(IV) After the investigation had started, Mr. Lubbers wrote Cynthia B. a letter and he sent an e-mail on the matter to the staff of the UNHCR. According to the Independent, he also hired "a top libel lawyer to stamp on any attempts to report leaks from the investigation". The article is unclear on wether Lubbers hired the lawyer himself or had the UNCHR do it. I don't know if the Independent had access to the letter or the e-mail and haven't read either, but I guess all this is the basis for the following statement the Independent cites from the report:

OIOS is also of the view that Mr Lubbers abused his authority as high commissioner by his intense, pervasive and intimidating attempts to influence the outcome of this investigation.

And that's basically it. Several women have accused Lubbers, he has a reputation and once the investigation got underway he tried to meddle with it. What more do you need to know?

Things pointing towards the victim of dastardly ploy theory:

(I) Cynthia B. waited four months before filing her complaint. "After much soul-searching", the Independent calls it. This is not extraordinary in such cases, but if you wanted to make a mountain out of a molehill.... Furthermore, at least in the Dutch newspapers, Ms. Lubbers strikes back. Catfight!!! According to Ria Lubbers:

Mijn man heeft er naar buiten toe altijd over gezwegen, maar het wordt tijd dat het maar eens hardop wordt uitgesproken. Deze mevrouw zat prive diep in de problemen en mijn man heeft haar alleen willen troosten. De dochter van deze vrouw had zelfmoord gepleegd en het huis van haar moeder in brand gestoken. Omdat het een zelfmoord betrof was de vrouw niet verzekerd. ''

",Ruud wist daarvan en heeft na die bewuste vergadering een arm om haar heen geslagen en gezegd: ik hoop dat je volgend jaar een beter jaar krijgt. Na een paar maanden heeft deze vrouw waarschijnlijk bedacht hoe ze daar wat geld uit kon slaan."

My quick 'n sloppy translation:

My husband has always remained silent on this issue, but it's time to say this out loud. This woman was in big personal troubles en all my husband wanted was to console her. Her daughter had committed suicide and burnt her mother's house down. Because it was a suicide the woman wasn't insured.

Ruud knew about this and put an arm around her after the meeting in question saying: "I hope next year will be better". After a few months this woman probably figured she could make some money out of this.

Now I assume Ria Lubbers really meant that Cynthia B. had insurance but the insurance would not pay for the house because it was arson, but maybe the daughter's life was insured. Anyway, this is an angle that I haven't seen reported in any English language medium.

(II) There were witnesses. Two. Both male. The Independent has this: "Their accounts contradict, and disagree with [Lubbers'] own strident denial of inappropriate behaviour. One [the head of the HR department, je] told investigators that his boss had been "inappropriately familiar" and had twice put his arms around the woman's waist. The other, a subordinate of Mr Lubbers [his kabinetschef , whatever that may be at the UNCHR, je] , said he had seen nothing at all.

However, in the Dutch papers Lubbers' own statement (which he wrote to Kofi Annan in response to the OIOS-report) is quoted:

Als ik haar heb aangeraakt (...), zou mijn rechterhand op haar middel hebben gerust.

If I have touched her (...), my right hand would have been resting on her waist.

I really don't see the contradiction. One guy didn't see anything, or at least didn't remember seeing anything, which is not impossible after a couple of months, while the other basically said the same thing as Lubbers did.

Obviously, this is not how OIOS sees it. According to OIOS these two men were part of Lubbers' inner circle, one of them had talked of "inappropriately familiar behavior", they contradicted each other and OIOS suspected that Lubbers had talked with both of them prior to their testimonies. Therefore, their testimonies were dismissed.

Now, I am no legal scholar. But doesn't the fact that their testimonies aren't in sync suggest that Lubbers didn't talk with them? And how is it that "inappropriate familiar behavior", meant by the witness to describe an arm put around a waist, can still apply when OIOS takes it to mean "grabbing someone from behind and dry-humping her", but somehow the rest of the testimony is thrown out, tainted by the close working relationship between the witness and the accused? Would someone -anyone- really describe that as inappropriately familiar? And finally, if the OIOS thinks the two witnesses were cheats, shouldn't they be fired or demoted or something?

(III) These four other women. What about them? To protect their privacy, their names were deleted from the report, and they are only known as Woman A through D. Once again, the Independent:

One said she had been invited to Mr Lubbers' home, ostensibly to discuss work. She found the agenda was personal and he wanted to "sit very close" and touch her "in a sexual way". She left immediately.

Another woman said she had been "grabbed and embraced". A third said Mr Lubbers had attempted to grope her while visiting her place of work. A fourth said she was twice propositioned by Mr Lubbers who, she said, later apologised. In all of these cases the matter went no further.

Score none for the High Commissioner. But let me translate a bit from NRC Handelsblad:

Of case "a" .... Lubbers says she wanted to talk with him about the Palestinian refugees "outside the office", and he let her choose "to meet each other either in a bar/restaurant or in my appartment." Because he had noticed she wasn't at ease there ("It in no way constituted sexual harassment"), he later had apologized in writing.

The cases "b" and "c" he calls "speculation": "I can't recall these incidences."

About case "d" he writes: "Here I have no other observation than that is was merely an invitation to have a drink, that wasn't welcome and was refused." According to OIOS he invited this woman to his hotelroom with the remark: "I am lonely". Lubbers denies that: "I said:'I am alone now'".

Not a very convincing defense, but not altogether impossible. Besides, as Lubbers wrote the Independent:

It is noteworthy that during the investigation, several UNHCR female colleagues came forward to vouch for my character and integrity but this expression of support was ignored by OIOS.

To which number of female defendants I can add the misses. Ria Lubbers:

Iedereen in Nederland weet hoe aimabel mijn man omgaat met mannen en vrouwen. ... Als dat seksuele intimidatie is, dat is het voor die Amerikanen een open intekening.

Everyone knows how amiably my husband behaves with men and women. ... If that is sexual intimidation, it must be an open invitation for these Americans [to file complaints, je].

But more importantly, despite guarantees of anonymity, none of the four women would present signed testimony. Of course, OIOS used their statements anyway, to establish "a pattern of sexual harassment".

(III) For years Lubbers has had a reputation of being a ladies man, a charmeur. He's been in the public eye since 1973, and there have been lots of rumours, but never a scandal. Now I can imagine the Dutch press keeping a lid on a discreet extra-marital affair (on account of them being chickenshits), but not on sexual harassment and abuse of privilege. In fact, former Minister Hedy d'Ancona (and a prominent feminist) describes him thus:

"It always was about women who weren't averse to his charmes. .... Indeed he possesses [that trait that, je] men who love women have: he wants to be charming. I always found this very pleasant". .... D'Ancona can't recall witnessing Lubber's escapades or even being invited by him for a romantic engagement. "He did tell me once about the romantic feeling he had for the secretary of Mitterand. But that was platonic. We talked about that. I might nog have been his type, but of course: at my age you know this type of men. They aren't threatening."

From the Volkskrant. Somehow, grabbing a woman from behind in front of other people doesn't strike me as Lubbers' style.

(IV) What about NATO and the CIA report that Westerterp talked about? Well, Westerterp is an idiot. Besides that, he also admits he's never seen the report. And why on earth would the Clinton White House deny Lubbers this post.... because of womanizing?

Another explaination for the American veto can be that Lubbers tried to worm his way out of a promise made in 1984 to allow the Americans to place Pershing cruise missiles with nuclear warheads on Dutch soil. Understandably, in the face of huge demonstrations and petitions (3.7 million autographs in a country with 15 million people), but it is also understandable the US military were less than enthusiastic about a man who broke a promise made to them. In the end, with a little help from East/West detente, the missiles were never placed.

(V) What about the e-mail, the letter and the meddling in the investigation? Lubbers said he sent the e-mail to try to calm things down within the organisation, while the letter to Cynthia B. was intended as "an informal attempt at reconciliation". OIOS talks of intimidation.

Since I can't find the text of either document, I don't know what to make of this. But I do remember that Lubbers has a lawyerly way with words, therefore I don't believe for a minute that he would make transparent threats on paper that would make his intent (to intimidate people into submission) clear. If he did try to threaten people, he would definitely use cloaked language and ambiguities.So either the OIOS chose to interpret his words as intimidating, or they felt that Lubbers was out of line even mentioning this ongoing enquiry.Not much of a benefit of the doubt there.

(VI) Procedural mistakes. Lubbers claims the OIOS made them. For instance, he wasn't allowed to read the complaint before he was heard on it, and OIOS did not give him the benefit of the doubt "despite the lack of hard evidence". OIOS was challenged by Lubbers to substantiate their claim of the other four cases, but they did not. According to Lubbers, unless these four women filed official complaints of their own, the investigation should have been restricted to the incident in question.

(VII) The whole confidential report was leaked. If it were a public inquiry, there could have been no anonymous testimomy, let alone anonymous unsigned testimony. One of the lawyers who looked at the case on Lubbers' behalf, former Minister van der Stoel, explicitly accuses OIOS of leaking to the press. When Lubbers ordered an investigation into these leaks, the OIOS thought this was "possibly interfering with (....) the work done by OIOS". Van der Stoel, on the other hand, called it "logical", and called the report "biased" and further investigations into the leaks "very desirable".

(VIII) Kofi Annan bowed to outside pressure. Back in May 2004, at least according to the Independent, "the UN secretary general (...) consulted lawyers outside the organisation, who said the findings would not stand up in court in the absence of signed testimony from the four women who echoed the whistleblower's complaint."

Back then, Annan only issued Lubbers with a strong warning about his conduct. Now, with no new information, he asked for (and got) Lubbers' resignation.

Conclusion:

Lubbers was framed, even if he were guilty. The OIOS report, which was seriously flawed even as internal investigations go, does not come close to proving Lubbers' guilt, and would have been useless in court. It is obviously biased. Why he was framed, I have no idea, but the OIOS, and especially its director Dileep Nair, is obviously serving someone's agenda.