Day to Oppose the Use of Child Soldiers

redhandday_goma_08Today, February 12, marks the eighth anniversary of the entry into force of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.  As IntLawGrrls points out, the U.S. is a party to the protocol (even though it remains one of the only two countries in the world  that has not ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child itself).

Non-governmental organizations that work to end the phenomenon of child soldiers call the day “Red Hand Day”, and the photo above shows activities in Goma, in Congo DR, marking Red Hand Day in 2008.

An open debate on children and armed conflict in the Security Council last April raised interesting issues.  Radhika Coomaraswamy, the Secretary General’s Special Representative for the issue of children and armed conflict emphasized that the abuse and exploitation of children during armed conflict goes far beyond their recruitment as fighters:

Ideally, the list of the Secretary-General should include all grave violations against children to ensure that the framework for protecting children in situations of armed conflict is comprehensive. However, expectations do not always match realities, and therefore, the UN and its partners have chosen to call upon the Council to take a gradualist path for the expansion of the protection framework for children. This is why the child protection community is unanimously calling on the Council to begin, at a minimum, with expanding the listing criteria to include parties that commit rape and other grave sexual violence against children as a first step in this incremental approach. The inclusion of killing and maiming of children in line with international humanitarian law would also be an important contribution to protecting children. This would be a critical step forward, recognizing that sexual violence and intentional killing and maiming are  heinous crimes on par with the recruitment and use of children.

As I was writing this blog post this morning, my six-year-old son asked me what the people in the photo above were doing.  I explained that they were working together to stop the use of child soldiers.   He asked, “Child soldiers?  How could an army get child soldiers?  They could go to the child and say, “excuse me, we would like you to help us with our fighting please,” but the child could just say, “No, thank you.”  I explained the use of violence to force children (and other people) to do things they don’t want to do.

In my refugee law seminar, we have been discussing the status of child soldiers in refugee law.  As another blog post sums up, child soldiers are in a double bind.  First, they often have trouble proving their status as refugees, because their status as “children” is fleeting.  If you survive your life as a child soldier, you become an adult, probably a former child soldier.  And unless you can show that you face persecution on account of your status as a former child soldier, you do not fit the legal definition of a “refugee.”  Furthermore, under U.S. law, your actions as a child soldier will surely qualify as persecution of others, or terrorism, or at least material support for terrorism, making you ineligible for refugee protection, unless you receive a discretionary waiver of that bar.  It is discouraging, how quickly the law’s empathy for children’s vulnerability and exploitation changes, once the children become adults.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.