CIAO DATE: 08/04

Senate Holds Hearing on Child Soldiers Treaty

Rachel Stohl

Center for Defense Information

March 2002

On March 7, 2002, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, and its companion Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography. (In this article, I am focusing only on the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict.) Both Protocols are related to, but independent of, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified except the United States and Somalia.

The hearing featured two panels, one with government witnesses speaking in support of Senate ratification, and the other with representatives of non–governmental organizations focusing on the importance of international instruments to protect children and the significance of the Optional Protocol in particular.

The speakers on the government panel were Michael Southwick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, Marshall Billingslea, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Negotiations Policy, and John Malcomb Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Justice Department’s Criminal Division.

The second panel featured Jo Becker, Advocacy Director of the Children’s Rights Division at Human Rights Watch, Admiral Eugene Carroll, U.S. Navy (ret.), and Vice President Emeritus at the Center for Defense Information, and Rear Admiral Timothy O. Fanning, Jr. USNR (ret.), National President of the Navy League of the United States.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA) chaired the hearing, while Senators Jesse Helms (R–NC) and Paul Wellstone (D–MN) also attended. In the past, Senator Helms had expressed concern with the Protocol’s impact on U.S. national security and military readiness. However, at the hearing, all three Senators made statements supporting the importance of the Protocol to protect children and urging swift Senate ratification.

Although the hearing marked a clear shift in Helms’s position – and the Senator made many positive remarks during his opening statement; specifically that the U.S. must find a way to help the children suffering around the world and that the Protocols were well intended – Helms did caution the United States not to assume that the Protocol will solve the problem of children being used as soldiers. In addition, Helms stated that the Optional Protocol must not be used to undermine existing U.S. military recruiting practices and that the it not become a legal liability on U.S. taxpayers or affect unit morale.

The panel witnesses all spoke favorably about the Protocols and their minimal impact on U.S. policy and practice. Ambassador Michael Southwick, who led the U.S. team that negotiated the Protocol, described the magnitude of the problems affecting children around the world, highlighting the 300,000 children exploited and prostituted, 600,000 forced laborers, and 300,000 child soldiers. With regards to the Protocols, Southwick said that the treaties are not magic wands. While they are tools and they can help diminish the dangers for children, real progress will depend on the follow–up measures the United States and world employ. Southwick stated that the Protocol is fully consistent with U.S. practice and will not impede the U.S. military. John Malcom of the Department of Justice echoed Southwick’s comments and indicated that the Optional Protocol will have no impact on the United States pursuing its national security objectives.

Marshall Billingslea discussed DoD support for ratification of the Protocol. Billingslea said that the Protocol will have no impact on current recruiting practices, as the U.S. does not recruit children under the age of fifteen, the standard set by the Protocol. Billingslea also explained that the Protocol will not impact enlistment practice, because the United States sets 17 as the minimum for voluntary recruitment, an age within the terms of the Protocol.

Billingslea emphasized the U.S. interpretation of “all feasible measures” as contained in the Protocol (the Protocol requires states to “take all feasible measures” to ensure that soldiers under the age of 18 do not participate in armed conflict). The United States believes that in case of any unforeseen event or emergency, the Protocol does not prohibit 17 year olds from defending themselves in combat. Indeed, the United States believes that seventeen year olds in the U.S. military can still participate in combat support and combat service support activities. The Protocol, according to DoD, prevents under 18s from taking a direct part in hostilities, defined by the United States as immediate and actual action on the battlefield that is likely to cause harm.

Billingslea also highlighted two other significant perspectives of the U.S. government with regards to the Protocol. First, the Optional Protocol is an independent multilateral agreement and does not indicate support or acceptance of any part of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Second, the United States will take sole responsibility and jurisdiction in measuring adherence to the Optional Protocol.

Jo Becker spoke on behalf of the U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. She reflected on the experiences of children in war, quoting former Sierra Leone child soldier Ishmael Beah, who said, “I vividly remember the very first day that I was in combat. . .I was recruited with the kids that were eight years old, nine years old. They were so small some of them couldn’t even carry the AK–47’s that were given to us so they had to drag it. I was in an ambush and bullets were flying back and forth, people were shooting. I didn’t want to pull the trigger at all but when you watch kids. . .being shot and killed and. . .dying and crying and their blood was spilling all over your face you just moved beyond, something just pushed you and you start pulling the trigger.” Becker also described the situation for children in Afghanistan, as well as the international efforts to eliminate this horrible practice.

Admiral Carroll spoke on the small number of U.S. soldiers impacted by the Protocol’s provisions. Admiral Carroll provided data on the number of recruits that are under 18 (approximately 3,000) when they enter the armed services and the even smaller figure (estimated at no more than 200) that are actually deployable. Admiral Carroll emphasized that neither U.S. security nor readiness would be impacted by ratification of the Protocol.

Admiral Fanning’s remarks focused on the need of the United States to avoid unintentional consequences that may arise if the Protocol is ratified. Specifically, Admiral Fanning wanted to ensure that the Protocol was not misconstrued to impact JROTC and other similar programs, as well as not hurt unit cohesion. Further, Admiral Fanning wanted to ensure that ratification of the Protocol did not cause unnecessary collateral damaged to the military, that commanders were protected from liability, that the United States ensure that no unnecessary requirements are added to readiness, and that no additional burdens or liabilities result from ratification. Admiral Fanning concluded his remarks by saying that based on the previous witness testimony he felt the interests of the United States would not be compromised by ratifying the Protocol.

The hearing was the first step towards Protocol ratification. The Senate will now schedule a date for a floor vote to consider the Protocol. A two–thirds majority must approve the Protocol in order for it to be ratified and become U.S. law.