The reputation and career of the former Dutch prime minister, Ruud Lubbers, lies in ruins, but his forced resignation as United Nations high commissioner for refugees amidst allegations of sexual harassment has in no way advanced the cause of women. Lubbers? ousting in fact has done enormous harm to the need to attract high quality individuals to international public service.

The UN held an inquiry last year after a female American employee complained about Lubbers? conduct at a meeting at which two others were also present. The inquiry?s confidential report was submitted last July to the secretary-general, who ruled that the complaint could not be sustained. There the matter rested until Independent published details of the leaked report, which had apparently found Lubbers guilty of improper behaviour, and included the testimony of four other women who claimed to be offended by his behaviour. In the swirl of scandal that unfolded, Kofi Annan changed his mind and Lubbers resigned ? still protesting his innocence.

The hounding out of Ruud Lubbers is disturbing. While sexual harassment of women is a serious offence, such cases need to be handled with utmost care in the interest of fairness. A similar situation arises with rape. In India, activists have long lobbied for stronger action against rape and over time, legislation has been tightened to make it easier for the perpetrators to be brought to justice.

Recently, in West Bengal there were cases in which men were arrested and held in police custody for rape, only to find later that sex had been consensual. The complaint had been made when the women became pregnant and the men declined to marry them, or when the man agreed to marry another woman. The women claimed they had consented to sex on the promise of marriage. In a twist perhaps possible only in India, the arrested men were pressured to marry their accusers! The men in these cases might at most be accused of irresponsible behaviour, but they were certainly not rapists, and the use of the charge of rape against them was a gross misuse of the law.

For free

According to the published details of the UN report, the original complaint against Lubbers is contradicted by the two other witnesses present. The other four are anonymous and unsigned testimony. The complaints involve uncorroborated allegations of ?over-familiar? touching or invitations, not actual sexual relations ? leaving ample room for the possibility of misunderstanding in the diverse cultural and social milieu of the UN.

Demanding sexual favours in exchange for professional reward, continuous pestering, or threatening retaliation if such favours are refused, would constitute harassment, but there is no indication Lubbers did anything of the sort. Lubbers has stated that there were other female colleagues willing to testify in his favour, but they were ignored. Second, Annan?s handling of the matter raises questions. If the report did not merit Lubbers? removal last year, why should it merit his removal this year? Last year Annan issued a warning ? which was appropriate, as clearly Lubbers? manner was offending some people. A meeting with the complainant, in which Lubbers could have said that he meant no offence, might have helped clear the air.

Lubbers was certainly a misfit at the UN in a different way. Many are attracted to the UN by the lure of fat taxfree pay packets. Lubbers had waived his salary. No new evidence is claimed to have come to light against him, nor any new complaint. Yet, beset by numerous other scandals of monumental financial swindling on his watch ? some of which reach his own family ? Annan chose this moment to fire a man who is exceptionally well regarded for his leadership of the Netherlands, and who, unlike most others, was serving the world?s refugees for free.