Marshall Islands Journal reporting raises questions about follow-up, translation, and accountability

Women who reported alleged sexual harassment while working at U.S. Army Garrison–Kwajalein (USAG-KA) say that navigating the reporting process has become nearly as difficult as coming forward in the first place.

Recent reporting by the Marshall Islands Journal describes multiple Marshallese women who reported allegations of sexual harassment and assault involving a security officer but said they experienced confusion, delays, limited follow-up, and uncertainty about which agency was responsible for investigating their complaints. According to the newspaper, some women also reported difficulty obtaining copies of their own statements months after filing reports.

The allegations have highlighted broader concerns about how reports involving Marshallese employees move between Army offices, contractors, local police, victim advocates, and other agencies.

One of the women who spoke anonymously with Chikin Melele said the experience has discouraged some victims from continuing with the process.

“I was one of those women, and it was a total of five of us. Two got scared and backed away.”

Multiple Agencies, Unclear Responsibility

According to the Marshall Islands Journal, reports may involve the U.S. Army’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) program, the Provost Marshal’s Office, Army contractors, the Marshall Islands Police Department, Women United Together Marshall Islands (WUTMI), and, in some cases, the RMI court system. Women interviewed by the newspaper described being referred between offices while receiving little clarity about who was responsible for next steps.

The Journal also reported that SHARP and WUTMI representatives traveled to Roi-Namur to meet with women who had reported harassment and collect statements. However, one victim told the newspaper that later, both the Provost Marshal’s Office and national police indicated those statements could not substitute for police reports, requiring survivors to repeat their accounts.

Cultural Barriers

The woman interviewed by Chikin Melele said many readers outside the Marshall Islands may not understand how difficult it can be for Marshallese women to report harassment.

“Marshallese people are among the most non-confrontational people you will ever meet,” she said. “Causing a scene or making others feel uncomfortable is not part of the way our people are.”

Because of those cultural values, she said, deciding to report requires overcoming deeply rooted expectations about avoiding conflict and preserving family and community relationships.

“When they muster up the strength to come forward, it should be taken into consideration that they are going against the fiber of their way of behavior and culture.”

Translation and Trust

The Marshall Islands Journal also reported concerns about interpretation during the reporting process. Some women said they were unable to use interpreters they trusted while describing traumatic experiences.

The woman interviewed by Chikin Melele said trusted interpretation is essential, particularly when survivors must describe intimate details.

She said some women became so intimidated by the reporting process that they chose not to continue after being required to speak without the support they had requested.

Fear of Retaliation

According to both the Marshall Islands Journal and the interview with Chikin Melele, women described fearing retaliation, job loss, continued contact with the accused, and a lack of communication after submitting reports.

The woman said these concerns extend beyond individual cases.

“The fear of losing one’s job if one reports, the fear of family finding out, the fear of getting hurt again if he finds out one reported him.”

She said those fears may discourage others from coming forward.

Army Policies and Continuing Questions

USAG-KA previously told the Marshall Islands Journal that it follows U.S. Army SHARP policies, encourages reporting, and prohibits retaliation against victims and witnesses.

Nevertheless, advocates interviewed by the newspaper questioned whether existing policies are consistently working in practice for Marshallese employees, particularly when contractor personnel, multiple jurisdictions, language differences, and overlapping responsibilities are involved.

Several questions remain unanswered, including:

• Which agency has primary responsibility for investigating complaints involving contractor employees?
• How are survivors kept informed about the status of their reports?
• What options exist for requesting trusted interpretation?
• What protections are available when a survivor fears continued contact with the accused?

Public Interest and Accountability

The woman who spoke with Chikin Melele said greater public attention may help ensure concerns receive appropriate review.

“Public support is probably our last resort for justice and getting the story out to others who might be facing the same thing.”

Individuals seeking information or wishing to encourage continued review of these issues may contact the appropriate public affairs offices, including the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific, which oversee communications for U.S. military operations in the Pacific.

Readers may also follow public updates from official U.S. Army and Indo-Pacific Command channels as additional information becomes available.

---

Editor’s Note

This article summarizes reporting previously published by the Marshall Islands Journal together with additional reporting and interviews conducted by Chikin Melele. The allegations discussed remain allegations unless established through investigative or judicial processes.