Politics
For now, the world's little warriors can fight on
Published 09 October 2000
A charter to stop children becoming soldiers sounds good. But the US is not keen, reports Barbara Gunnell
Nobody could be against a charter that aimed to protect children from the consequences of war, could they? And who would be so churlish as to ignore a passionate appeal by Graca Machel, the wife of Nelson Mandela and former first lady of Mozambique and South Africa, nations that have both seen far too many innocent victims of conflict?
Last month, Machel chaired an international conference in Winnipeg, Canada, on war-affected children - the first of its kind - and presented the results of her four-year study on child soldiers and victims of conflict. Foreign ministers and representatives of around 130 countries discussed the findings and agreed a programme of action to take to a United Nations Special Session on Children in September next year.
The worthy and - as long as war exists - almost unachievable aim of the programme of action is to protect millions of affected youngsters around the globe. They include 800 children killed or maimed every month by landmines; an estimated one million war orphans; more than ten million child refugees displaced by conflict; and four or five million children who have been disabled by war over the past ten years.
Machel, a passionate and persuasive advocate of the cause, argued for the demobilisation of child soldiers, educational rehabilitation, the return of children who had been abducted by armies and much more besides. Refreshingly straightforward in manner (she has not bothered to learn how to obfuscate her comments in diplomatic UN-speak), she invited delegates to expose the abusers.
But the "abusers" are not just rebel armies. Among those who recruit (or abduct) child soldiers are UN member governments whose armies include an estimated 300,000 youths aged under 18. Currently, children are involved in around 30 armed conflicts.
Some government armies and many rebel or opposition forces use children as young as ten. Even eight-year-olds are used for dangerous work - for example, to carry weapons, or as spies and messengers. Girls (and boys, too) may be abducted to do menial camp work or, worse, be taken as sex slaves. Delegates heard many of these stories of life in a war zone at first hand, from the personal testimonies of about 30 young people who the Canadian government had brought to Winnipeg to take part in a parallel session and make their own recommendations for the 2001 Special Session.
But although the cases that took centre stage at Winnipeg were those of the youngest and most vulnerable victims of war, the majority of "child" soldiers, under the UN's definition, are in fact aged between 15 and 18.
In May this year, the UN General Assembly set in train a new international legal framework covering child soldiers by adopting the so-called Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. This raises from 15 to 18 the minimum age for compulsory recruitment into national forces. Volunteers can be recruited younger, but countries that ratify the protocol will have to declare the age at which their national forces will permit voluntary recruitment. Rebel groups will accept volunteers only above the age of 18.
So far, Canada alone has ratified the protocol. In August, it brought in legislation to ban under-18s from fighting units. The UN, too, has set a minimum age of 18 for peacekeeping troops, and has asked governments providing troops for UN peacekeeping missions to opt for soldiers over 21 where possible.
The United States, meanwhile, remains uneasy with what it views as UN encroachments on its sovereign rights; where, it seems to ask, are all these international diktats leading? The US interprets the UN Charter as being based on the notion of equality between member states and non-intervention in the domestic jurisdiction of a particular state. An increasing number of UN initiatives go beyond that charter, none more so than the secretary- general's pet project of a permanent international criminal court.
The US has made various suggestions since the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court was drawn up in 1998, about the conditions under which it would be able to co-operate with such a court. One proposal was, put crudely, that it would have the right of veto over which cases were brought. Another was that any US agent could claim immunity if he was acting on behalf of the US government. More recently, it has sought to reduce the powers of the independent prosecutor. None of these suggests that the relationship between the court and the US is going to be an easy one, if the court ever gets going.
Canada's foreign affairs minister, Lloyd Axworthy, the driving force behind the conference on war-affected children, is also deeply committed to the international criminal court initiative. The day before the Winnipeg conference, he launched an international campaign to ensure that the court is ratified and implemented. The Rome Statute was initially promoted by 120 countries and currently has 112 signatories. Voting closes at the end of this year, after which 60 countries will have to ratify it in order for it to become law. But even with 60 ratifications, everyone knows that the US would have to play a significant role.
Last week, Kofi Annan addressed a Harvard Law School Advisory Board dinner on the subject, impressing upon guests the importance of US involvement. Annan believes that UN (and Nato) intervention in recent conflicts has raised international tolerance of the idea that there are limits to national sovereignty - for example, where the human rights of individuals are threatened. There is also growing support for the relatively new idea that the UN should protect threatened individuals as well as threatened states. Annan, with the harsh lesson of Rwanda behind him, certainly believes it is legitimate to intervene in the activities of a sovereign state for the purpose of protecting civilians.
The debate in Winnipeg over protecting children from the effects of war returned repeatedly to the same theme. Children were abused and their lives endangered, delegates argued, because politicians and army chiefs could commit war crimes with impunity. A permanent international criminal court would change that environment. As a result, establishing the court (along with ratification of the Optional Protocol) formed the basis of the main recommendation of "the group of experts" at Winnipeg. Other recommendations covered the release of child soldiers and prisoners as a precondition for peace talks, and for child protection teams to be part of every peace mission.
The UN children's fund, Unicef, also places importance on the international control of small arms and light weapons, including continued monitoring of landmines. According to its research, eight out of every ten people killed by small arms and light weapons are children and women.
The need for international control of small arms is due to be discussed at a major UN conference next year. And who could possibly be against that?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by using the 'report this comment' facility or by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
