You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
International-UN-NGOs
UNSC warns of firmer action on child soldiers
2008-02-13
UNITED NATIONS - The UN Security Council threatened on Tuesday to step up measures against armies and groups using child soldiers but made no firm pledge to impose sanctions requested by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.

In a report last month, Ban listed 58 parties to armed conflict in 13 countries — mainly in Africa and Asia — that sent children into battle. They included government armies in Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, Somalia and Sudan as well as rebel factions. The Security Council should consider penalizing those responsible by banning arms and military aid and slapping travel and financial restrictions on them, Ban said.

In a statement adopted after a debate on Tuesday, the council expressed “readiness to review the relevant provisions of its resolutions on children and armed conflict ... with a view to further increasing the efficiency of its actions.” But the statement, read out by current council president Ricardo Alberto Arias of Panama, went no further and asked Ban to submit another report by May 2009.
Thereby demonstrating just how important the issue really is.
The UN childrenÂ’s fund UNICEF estimated last year there were some 250,000 child soldiers worldwide. Other experts say the true numbers are impossible to determine.

The council had already said in resolutions in 2004 and 2005 it would consider targeted measures against violators, but so far it has punished only one person. In 2006 a sanctions committee imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on a former rebel commander from Ivory Coast, Martin Fofie.
Okay, there's one!
The latest resolution in 2005 set up a monitoring and reporting mechanism that allows Ban to identify violators in his reports.
Due in sixteen months. Followed by an extension, and then a stern warning.
Radhika Coomaraswamy, UN special representative for children and armed conflict, told Tuesday’s debate it was “most important that the council make good on its promise” to adopt concrete measures.

Several Western countries said they supported Ban’s position. Speaking for France, Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the council’s credibility was at stake. “There is no credible deterrence without real sanctions,” he said.
Flaccid power at work!
But Chinese envoy Liu Zhenmin said the council should work through governments and Beijing had “always opposed the wilful use of sanctions or the threat of sanctions.” He added that ”caution is called for” on the issue of child soldiers.

US envoy Alejandro Wolff said while Washington backed BanÂ’s efforts to end the use of child soldiers, it opposed his recommendation to refer violators to the International Criminal Court, to which the United States does not belong.

Despite the lack of firm commitments by the council, Coomaraswamy told reporters the statement “keeps the momentum, moving us forward.”
Posted by:

#6  I agree there is a difference but I believe (a) those using child soldiers tend to be rebels and governments that don't care what the UN says so nothing can get done (b) the UN likes to bash the USA and our 17 year old soldiers gives them an opening.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-02-13 21:05  

#5  I'm sure there is some difference between 17 year olds enlisting in their national army and pre-pubescent children being press-ganged into an irregular guerrilla force. Give me a minute to think and I'll come up with it.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-02-13 19:16  

#4  Yep you are rj, this is a nose under the tent. It's the 17 age limit [with the consent of one parent]. The little thing there called Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution grants Congress that authority which it has used since the beginning of the republic to identify the federal militia as starting at age 17. The intent was 12 and 13 year olds et al, but the UNacrats have used it to stick the US as usual. Nothing of course about using kiddies or down syndrome inflicted applies to the barbarians of the world.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2008-02-13 15:43  

#3  Don't fool yourself, child soldiers means America because we allow soldiers one year below the Un's established minimum. I don't know if that's 18 or 17 or what but I believe that is where this is aimed.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2008-02-13 14:09  

#2  Oooh, the UN is threatening "firmer action." I bet the Congolese are quaking in their boots.
[/sarcasam]
Posted by: Mike   2008-02-13 12:37  

#1  UNSC warns of firmer action on child soldiers

I'm sure UN members are already firming at the prospect.
Posted by: phil_b   2008-02-13 06:26  

00:00