Armed Groups and Resolution 1612

by Enrique Restoy [1], Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers newsletter #14, Winter 2005/06

"This formulation [of Resolution 1612] bears an intrinsic problem: all dialogue with armed opposition groups is circumscribed to a context of collaboration with the government against whom they fight." This article recognizes the intrinsic problem with the Task Force being set up in Colombo to report on the issues of concern in UN Resolution 1612. The Task Force contains the Sri Lankan government Social Services Ministry and their Peace Secretariat. How well will they allow problems for children other than those to do with underage recruitment to be reported?

This article takes note of the fact that there are issues other than the violation of the Optional Protocol by the armed group in underage recruitment. Not mentioned is the issue of security and the danger youths face as civilians in areas held by the Sri Lankan armed forces. -- Editor

In July 2005, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1612. [2] This resolution represents an important step towards carrying out effective measures against child recruiters and violators of the rights of children in armed conflict by creating a Monitoring and Research Mechanism (MRM). The Security Council has been playing a pivotal role in reducing child recruitment by government armed forces across the world, but, how effective can resolution 1612 be in addressing child recruitment by armed opposition groups while protecting children, communities and humanitarian agencies on the ground?

The challenge of child recruitment by armed groups

The nature of today’s conflicts is changing rapidly; wars between countries are less frequent than in previous eras and now constitute less than 5% of armed conflicts. [3] The Coalition’s research shows that, in 2004, up to 70 per cent of the world’s child soldiers were involved with a range of non-state armed groups, mostly fighting in opposition to government forces. The research also found that, while the recruitment and use of children in official armed forces declined between 2001 and 2004, tens of thousands continued to be involved in a variety of armed opposition groups.[4]

The phenomenon of child recruitment by armed groups (as by government armed forces) however, needs to be analysed from three different angles: as a human rights violation, as a humanitarian question, and as a wider developmental question.

The treatment of child recruitment as a human rights abuse or violation that must be combated, and its perpetrators punished according to international standards of justice, poses a major challenge when dealing with recruitment by armed groups in ongoing conflicts. Concentrating on the consideration of child recruitment exclusively as a human rights violation in ongoing conflicts would ignore the other two dimensions of child recruitment, and could endanger the security of children within the ranks of armed groups or forces;, other children and their communities;, and ; as well as humanitarian workers.

The use of children by armed groups is also undoubtedly a humanitarian question: when children are released from an armed group there is a long list of humanitarian needs to be covered from providing shelter and food to the children, to family tracing to psychosocial support.  But demobilisation of children never happens without the approval of the armed group: humanitarian organisations need to engage with armed groups on the ground in order to carry out their work (to provide protection of vulnerable groups, secure a “humanitarian space”, and promote respect of humanitarian principles) regardless of any political or judicial action taken against child recruiters.

The use of children by armed groups is also undoubtedly a humanitarian question. W: when children are released from an armed group there is a long list of humanitarian needs to be covered from providing shelter and food to the children, to family tracing the children’s families, to psychosocial support.  But demobilisation of children never happens without the approval of the armed group:. This means humanitarian organisations need to engage with armed groups on the ground in order to carry out their work toof provideing protection ofto vulnerable groups, secureing a “humanitarian space”, and promoteing respect ofor humanitarian principles, regardless of any political or judicial action taken against child recruiters.

 Child recruitment must also be seen as part of a larger as a developmental question: it can be both the cause and the effect of a breach in the right to development (breach of Economic, Social and Cultural rights as well as Civil and Political Rights). While child recruitment always means the commission of a crime by the recruiter, it is often the consequence of a series of factors and not just a unilateral action by the recruiter.

 Child recruitment must also be seen as part of a larger as a ddevelopmental question: it can be both the cause and the consequence of a breach in the right to development - a breach of Eeconomic, Ssocial and Ccultural rights as well as Ccivil and Ppolitical Rrights. While child recruitment always means the commission of a crime by the recruiter, it is often the consequence of a series of factors and not just a unilateral action by the recruiter.Although there are cases of widespread abduction, like the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, it is important to note that on many occasions child recruitment, especially of adolescents, is voluntary and frequently follows a series of breaches of the rights of the child, which are many times factors that also explain the creation of an armed group in the first place. The range is wide: from widespread poverty to lack of education, to privation of civil rights, exclusion, marginalisation, humiliation, displacement, etc…

Although there are cases of widespread abduction, like the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, it is important to note that on many occasions child recruitment, especially of adolescents, is voluntary. In such cases it and  frequently follows a series of breaches of the rights of the child, which are often the samemany times factors that also gave rise toexplain the creation of an armed group in the first place. The range of causal factors is wide and includes  from widespread poverty, to lack of education, to privation of civil rights, exclusion, marginalisation, humiliation and displacement.

Stopping voluntary recruitment is mostly a question of prevention;: it is a matter of development and human rights in its broader conception and not only a fight against impunity for those who recruit. It requires Ddemobilisation, Rrehabilitation and Rreintegration PprogramsDemobilisation, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Programs as well as Pprevention PprogrammesPrevention Programmes for the long term. These, which should go beyond the humanitarian notion and start addressing the issue of towards that of development. By  mitigating the breach of children’sthe right to developmentof children, such programs will giveinggiving them children alternatives to being actively involved in armed conflict.

The Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism in Resolution 1612

All three dimensions of child recruitment by armed groups: -  human rights, humanitarian and the right to development, - need to be taken into account in a holistic way if we really want to end the use of child soldiers in the long run. How does the action of the UNSC address the multifaceted nature of child recruitment by armed groups?

Resolution 1612 inherits the spirit of previous UNSC resolutions which were based on plans for dialogue and naming and shaming.[5] This latest resolution contains three major points emerging from the 2005 Secretary General Report to the Security Council: a proposal of a Research and Monitoring Mechanism, dialogue and an action plan.[6]

Resolution 1612 inherits the spirit of previous UNSC resolutions which were based on plans for dialogue and naming and shaming.[7] This latest resolution contains three major points emerging from the 2005 Secretary General’s Report to the Security Council: a proposal offor a Rresearch and Mmonitoring Mmechanism, dialogue, and an action plan.[8]

The landmark of Resolution 1612 is a comprehensive Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM) to record six grave violations committed against children in armed conflict, including recruitment of children in armed forces and armed groups. It includes a Task Force on Monitoring and Reporting on the ground (TF) led by UN representatives (UNICEF, Deputy SRSG) but with the participation of other UN agencies, NGOs and community based organisations. The Task Force will aim to obtain timely information on violations on children including use of child soldiers in areas of concern of the UNSC.

The landmark of Resolution 1612 is a comprehensive Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism (MRM) to record six grave violations committed against children in armed conflict, including the recruitment of children in armed forces and armed groups. It includes a Task Force on Monitoring and Reporting on the ground (TF) led by UN representatives (UNICEF and the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General) but with the participation of other UN agencies, NGOs and community based organisations. The task force will aim to obtain timely information on violations onagainst children including the use of child soldiers in areas of concern ofto the UN Security Council.

• Another working group (WG) will be created within the UNSC wit made up ofh some of its members. It and will make recommendations to the UNSC based on the information furnished by the task forces in the field to the UN Headquarters. There is no room for international or local NGOs to influence neither the reports given to the WGworking group within the UNSC or the recommendations made by the WGworking group to the UNSC.

The mechanism is expected to be implemented in a first phase in Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo Somalia and Sudan; it is possible that Nepal and Sri Lanka will be added to that list. 

The mechanism is expected to be implemented in a first phase in Burundi, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia and Sudan; it is possible that Nepal and Sri Lanka will be added to that list. 

The MRM could represent a major qualitative change for the humanitarian international organisations and local organisations who are asked to join the mechanism. In practice, they are being asked to add to their humanitarian character, the monitoring and reporting kind of work carried out human rights organisations. This means that while trying to preserve their perceived neutrality and objectivity in the field, they will be identified as taking part of a mechanism of denunciation that will be the basis for political action by the UNSC on those who recruit and with whom those organisations are constantly engaged to secure their humanitarian work in the field. Potentially, this identification can be dangerous for these organisations, especially since the mechanism does not allow those organisations in the field to participate in the final recommendations for action to the UNSC.

The MRM could represent a major qualitative change for the humanitarian international humanitarian organisations and local organisations who are asked to join the mechanism. In practice, they are being asked to add to their humanitarian character, the monitoring and reporting kind of work carried out by human rights organisations. This means that while trying to preserve their perceived neutrality and impartiality in the field, theyse organisations will be identified as taking part ofin a mechanism of denunciation that will be the basis for political action by the UNSC onagainst the very peoplethose who recruit and with whom theyose organisations are constantly engaged to secure their humanitarian work in the field. Potentially, tThis identification canould be potentially dangerous for these organisations, especially since the mechanism does not allow those organisations in the field to participate in the final recommendations for action to the UNSC.

At the ground level, the Coalition is concerned about how the mechanism will interact with the humanitarian aspect of child soldiers: will how is iittit going to prompt response by  prompt humanitarian agencies to respond to the violations they are reporting and support their efforts to protect children and their communities from these violations? Most local organisations have to live in contact with armed groups on a daily baseisbases: how are security and confidentiality going to be guaranteed for those local organisations that will take part in the task force? How are they going to be financially and technically supported for being part of the task force? What is their power to influence the outcome of the research that the TF will compile?

A mechanism to trigger appropriate and effective action?

Resolution 1612, states that the Monitoring and Reporting MechanismMRM “will not prejudge or imply” a decision by the UNSC as to whether or not include a situation ion in its agenda. The agenda is actually not just the result of a straight forward analysis of the situations where children are most vulnerable to armed conflict; other considerations inherent to the nature of the UNSC apply:. These include the likelihood of the conflict to spread to or destabilise other states, orand whether situations likely to encounter strong opposition to action in key UNSC members are likely to strongly oppose action in certain situations.  This explains (that is the case of the non-inclusion ionin the agenda of the UNSC of situations like the Northern Ireland and Chechnya, due to the opposition of Great Britain and the Russian Federation respectively).

To date and after five resolutions on the issue of Children in Armed Conflict, the UNSC is yet to take action of any sort against child recruiters.[9] The Wording of Resolution 1612 is not reassuring in this case, since it makes no connection between the targeted measures to be considered by the UNSC and the recommendations to be submitted by the task force to the UNSC.

To date and after five resolutions on the issue of Children in Armed Conflict, the UNSC has yet to take action of any sort against child recruiters.[10] The Wwording of Resolution 1612 is not reassuring in this case, since it makes no connection between the targeted measures to be considered by the UNSC and the recommendations to be submitted by the task force to the UNSC.

It is important to note, though, that the UNSC is not the only recipient for action the Mechanism is supposed to approach. It is very positive that the resolution identify other “destinations for action” to which the mechanism can provide information for timely action, they include: national governments, regional and international organisations, the UN General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the International Criminal Court.

It is important to note, though, that the UNSC is not the only potential actorrecipient for action  the Mechanism is supposed to approach. It is very positive that the resolution identifyies other “destinations for action” to which the mechanism The mechanism should also be useful for the task force at the country level independently from its connection to the UN agencies’ headquarters and the UNSC. If it is designed properly, it can provide information for timely action,. tTheyse include: national governments, regional and international organisations, the UN General Assembly, the Commission on Human Rights and the International Criminal Court.

The mechanism should also be useful for the task force at the country level,  iindependently from its connection to the UN agencies’ headquarters and the UNSC. If it is designed properly, it couldan help international and local NGOs and UN agencies in the field to better coordinate their activities and allow for effective response to increase child protection. 

Dialogue in resolution 1612

Resolution 1612 requests the UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict (SRSG-CAC) or the UN Country Representative within the context of MRM to initiate contact with parties that recruit children and engage in dialogue forto establish action plans to halt recruitment of child soldiers.

This dialogue, however, is limited by the UNSC itself: according to the resolution, dialogue “between UN entities and armed groups is limited to peace processes where they exist and in the context of cooperation between the UN and the concerned government”. This formulation bears an intrinsic problem: all dialogue with armed opposition groups is circumscribed to a context of collaboration with the government against whom they fight.

This statement also encapsulates the problem of cooperation with armed groups within the UNSC resolutions:. T there are many areas were peace processes have stalled, like Colombia, Uganda or Nepal, but where child recruitment continues. In those areas, dialogue (lobby, negotiationand negotiation is being carried out) does go on by local NGOs and humanitarian agencies, as it is essential from the humanitarian point of view in order to secure the release of child soldiers and facilitate their reintegration. S; such initiatives seem to be below the radar of the UNSC but need to be taken into account when applying targeted measures against recruiters under the MRM.

The Dialogue component of the latest resolution is inherited from previous UNSC resolutions on children in armed conflicts (1539, 1416, 1379), which have alternated measures to enhance dialogue with armed forces and groups to stop recruitment and collaborate in the demobilisation and reintegration of child soldiers with coercive measures aimed at stopping recruitment. These measures have fallen short until now: commitments by armed groups to stop child recruitment were all made to the UNSR-CAC before 2000 and have not been followed up;, and focal points for dialogue have not been properly established.

Action plans in resolution 1612

Action plans were initially introduced in Resolution 1539 (2004). Parties reported as recruiting children were called upon to prepare time-bound action plans under the monitoring of the Secretary General. Resolution 1612 “expresses serious concerns regarding the lack of progress in development and implementation of these action plans.”

The resolutions mentions very briefly that the UNSC urges “all parties concerned” to support development of national institutions in child protection and rehabilitation; it also mentions that the UNSC urges member states and others to take measures against cross-border illicit activities harmful to children, like illicit trade in small arms, abduction for recruitment, etc... But it is the Action plans that should nuance the three aspects of child soldier use (human rights violations, humanitarian and development) and make concrete time-bound provisions for all parties involved in these areas, including UN agencies, the government and other states.

The resolution mentions briefly that the UNSC urges “all parties concerned” to support the development of national institutions infor child protection and rehabilitation; it also mentions that the UNSC urges member states and others to take measures against cross-border illicit activities harmful to children, likesuch as the illicit trade in small arms, or abduction for recruitment., etc... But it is the Aaction plans that should nuancereflect the three aspects of child soldier use ( - human rights violations, humanitarian and development). They shouldand  make concrete time-bound provisions for all parties involved in these areas, including UN agencies, the government and other states.

In devising action plans, it is not only the armed group that has a responsibility to act.; fFrom; from the humanitarian point of view, implementing agencies, and institutions and the government need to explain their plans for the demobilisation and proper rehabilitation and reintegration of children. H; humanitarian agencies and donor governments have the responsibility to make public their provisions for that job to be done professionally and an with sufficient resources. The longer termperspective is also excluded in the terminology of action plans:, but  tackling the root causes of child recruitment in the longer rumterm should also be an integral part of them the action plans;. H humanitarian agencies, the governments government and donors also have to bearshare the responsibility of delivering effective prevention programmes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Enrique Restoy is Programme Manager at the International Secretariat of the Child Soldiers Coalition. This article is an extract of a larger presentation that can be foundobtained by contacting regiona@child-soldiers.org

[2] Resolution 1612 (2005). Adopted by the Security Council at its 5235th meeting, on 26 July 2005. United Nations S/RES/1612 (2005)

[3] Human Security Report, University of British Columbia. October 2005. www.humansecurityreport.info

[4] The Child Soldiers Global Report 2004, published by the Coalition, documented children’s involvement in armed conflict in more than 20 countries and territories where hostilities occurred between April 2001 and March 2004.  Between those dates, children under the age of 18 (under-18s) were involved with armed opposition groups in Afghanistan, Angola, Burundi, Chad, Central African Republic, Colombia, Côte D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Guinea, India, Iraq, Occupied Palestinian Territories, Indonesia, Liberia, Myanmar, Nepal, Philippines, Republic of Congo, Russian Federation, Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda.

[5] The United Nations Secretary General’s report to the UNSC prior to resolution 1612 identified 42 parties in 11 countries for violating international laws banning the recruitment of child soldiers. Of these, 30 had been listed at least once in previous UNSC Secretary General’s reports to the UNSC. 21 have been listed in each of his last three reports. Among the three-time repeat offenders only two governments were identified: the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar (Burma).

[6] See Report of the Secretary General of 9 February 2005. United Nations (S/2005/72)

[7] The United Nations Secretary General’s report to the UNSC prior to resolution 1612 identified 42 parties in 11 countries for violating international laws banning the recruitment of child soldiers. Of these, 30 had been listed at least once in previous UNSC Secretary General’s reports to the UNSC. 21Twenty-one have been listed in each of his last three reports. Among the 21 three-time repeat offenders only two governments were identified: the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Myanmar (Burma).

[8] See Report of the Secretary General of 9 February 2005. United Nations (S/2005/72)

[9] Resolution 1539 contemplated the possibility of introducing targeted measures for those parties to conflict that refuse to collaborate in dialogue and the establishment and implementation of action planes. This resolution failed to establish clearly what measures and how and when and against whom, they would apply. Resolution 1216 simply reiterated the UNSC intention to consider imposing targeted and graduated measures (once again with barely the same formulation as in resolution 1539)

[10] Resolution 1539 contemplated the possibility of introducing targeted measures for those parties to conflict that refuse to collaborate in dialogue and the establishment and implementation of action planes. This resolution failed to establish clearly what measures and how, and when and against whom, they would apply. Resolution 1216 simply reiterated the UNSC intention to consider imposing targeted and graduated measures (once again with barely the same formulation as in resolution 1539).