When humanitarian aid becomes criminally uncharitable 

Such conditions leave many, especially women and children, vulnerable to all sorts of exploitation, including the actions of sexual predators. There is an obvious expectation that, under these conditions, humanitarian organizations, including INGOs, NGOs and UN agencies, will be the protectors of the vulnerable, not their exploiters and victimizers.
For Oxfam, these recent revelations leave it with a mountain to climb. It must rebuild its reputation and credibility, not only among its funders and the wider public, but particularly among those whom it is assigned to help.
What is worse, though, is that the entire field of humanitarian and foreign aid has been seriously damaged by this sordid affair. Further stories of similar behavior some years ago by an Oxfam team in Chad — and an admission by the international aid group Medecins Sans Frontieres that last year it had to act on 24 cases of sexual harassment or abuse and fired 19 of its employees — cannot help but make us wonder just how widespread this behavior might be among aid workers. 
There is no escaping the fact that these revelations also cast a long shadow on the entire humanitarian operations world in terms of accountability and public scrutiny. That it has taken seven years for the Oxfam story to come to light is disturbing in itself. And it is not only the NGOs that are under the microscope, but international organizations in general, including those affiliated with the United Nations. Kathryn Bolkovac, who went to Bosnia as part of a UN mission, disclosed in her 2011 book “The Whistleblower” the direct involvement of UN peacekeepers and US State Department officials in the sexual enslavement of young women trafficked there mainly from Russia and Ukraine. Every time a story like this hits the headlines it produces shockwaves, but quite clearly not enough is ever done to prevent the repetition of such atrocities.
However, as justified as much of the criticism of Oxfam and other organizations may be, it would be unwise to let this undermine, or let it be used to undermine, the work of a huge number of NGOs that are doing exceptional humanitarian work, domestically and internationally. They fill a huge gap in the global society where governments are failing to act and private businesses are reluctant to pull their weight, and where in many cases both are part of the problem rather than the solution. INGOs and NGOs at their best are devoted, competent and agile, and ready to carry out humanitarian missions with a minimum of fuss and at a moment’s notice. But they are also, sadly, part of a global society where misogyny is a prevailing aspect of life and a phenomenon that we seem to be very slow in ridding ourselves of. And, unfortunately, in areas hit by disasters, natural or man-made, it is even easier for the minority of rotten apples in these organizations to cynically take advantage of breakdowns in the rule of law and exploit the most vulnerable.

The Oxfam sexual misconduct case highlights that something is rotten in the aid sector and organizations must put in place procedures to prevent such acts occurring and take appropriate action when they do.

Yossi Mekelberg

At the beginning of the Oxfam affair, the organization unreservedly apologised and was rightly contrite and remorseful. It announced that it was setting up a high-level independent commission to look into the culture and practices of the organization, with a mandate to investigate past and current claims of sexual exploitation; to set up a global database of accredited referees to ensure sex offenders cannot falsify references and reoffend at other charities; and to facilitate a safe “whistleblowing mechanism.” 
However, Oxfam then went on the counter-attack. Its chief executive Mark Goldring revealed the other side of the organization, unwisely downplaying the severity of the behavior of some of its staff in Haiti, and calling into question the sincerity of the organization’s critics. He told the UK’s Guardian newspaper that the attacks on Oxfam are “out of proportion to the level of culpability.” He might be correct to point out that some critics with a broader anti-aid agenda are indeed “gunning” for the humanitarian aid world. Yet some of his remarks, such as “the intensity and the ferocity of the attack makes you wonder, what did we do… We murdered babies in their cots?” are extremely insensitive and make one wonder if the organization can learn from its wrongdoing under its current leadership. Goldring has since apologized for his remarks.