The CRC, the Optional Protocol, Child Soldiers and the LTTE
[Excerpts from a report]
by LTTE Peace Secretariat website, July 3, 2006
|
Given that more than 800 of the youths in the list are now over the age of 18, UNICEF’s call for the release of these youths is not based on any international human rights standards. It can only be viewed as a desperate attempt to boost the numbers in their list with a view to discredit the LTTE. When seen with the silence of UNICEF in the face of horrendous attacks on children by the GoSL-operated forces, the above view is further reinforced.
|
Understanding and applying Child Rights standards in the Northeast under the LTTE de-facto government has become a confused affair due to several inherent contradictions surrounding the issue. Three major contradictions surrounding the issue are explained below.
Contradiction One: The UN child rights instrument
The following two important facts about the United Nations child rights instruments are unknown to many people energetically working on the issue of child solders.
1. The United Nations Convention of Rights of Child (CRC) was adopted in 1989. In Article 38, it specifies 15 as the minimum age for recruitment into a State’s armed forces and calls on the States to, “take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities”.
2. The Optional Protocol to the CRC about Children in Armed Conflict was declared in 2001. It did not compulsorily raise this age of 15 as the minimum recruitment age for a State’s armed forces. It, however, did declare the minimum age of recruitment into “armed groups” as 18.
Unfortunately, the entire discourse on child soldiers is based on these inconsistent Articles in the CRC and its Optional Protocol. When these are applied to the youths between the ages of 15-18 who join the LTTE, the contradictions multiply further.
Contradiction Two: Evolution of the LTTE
The LTTE began its armed struggle in the early 1970s as a guerilla force, when it could have been accurately described as an armed group. However, in the 1970s there was neither the CRC, nor the Optional Protocol in place. Therefore, until 2001, that is when the Optional Protocol was declared, the LTTE did not violate any international human rights instruments by taking youths above the age of 15. The CRC allowed States to do so and, in the absence of anything else and by implication, armed groups would consider themselves to have the same right.
By the time the Optional Protocol entered into force in 2001, 10 years after the declaration of the CRC, and 30 year after the formation of the LTTE, the LTTE was a full-fledged, mature non-state actor running a de-facto government with many uncorrupt, efficient structures with demonstrated humanitarian concerns. Thus, since 2001, the LTTE is no more an armed group. It is indeed a State in formation. Yet, the LTTE has respected the international call to desist from recruiting underage youths and the result is that underage youths are regularly released to their families or to the ESDC (to be explained later) when the youth refuses to go back to his/her family.
Contradiction Three: Political tool or child welfare?
The UNICEF mission in Sri Lanka is its largest mission in the world. It has taken on the job of monitoring underage youths joining the LTTE as one of its major responsibilities, notwithstanding the above two contradictions. This UNICEF mission has, indeed, failed to understand the evolving context surrounding the issue in the Northeast, in spite of its long experience here.
The problem stems from the interaction of two factors, the Colombo polity’s determination to use the issue as a political tool and the Colombo-centredness of UNICEF. The Colombo polity, including, the GoSL, civil society, and peaceniks, have exploited the “LTTE child soldier issue” as a political tool from the very beginning.
The UNICEF Head Office in Colombo, like all other international agencies based in Colombo, is vulnerable to this vehement determination of the Colombo polity to use the issue for political ends. Of course, there are UNICEF mission branches in the Northeast. These branches collect and channel raw data to UNICEF's Colombo-based Head Office. However, policies are decided on, and statements and reports are issued from this Colombo Head Office. This Colombo-centredness of UNICEF and of all other international agencies, and indeed of the international community as a whole, prevents them from understanding the issue of underage youths joining the LTTE in context.
***********************************************************
UNICEF and child soldiers
by LTTE Peace Secretariat website, July 1, 2006
Number of names in the UNICEF June 2006 list -1387
On list, but previously released by LTTE - 54
Number over the age 21- 107
Number over the age 20 - 197
Number over the age of 19 - 247
Number over 18 - 285
Number over 17 - 207
Number under the age of 17 - 293
Children affected by war in the Northeast cry out for help by joining the LTTE. By crying for help, these children are forcing us to deal with their situation. UNICEF has been operating in the Northeast for several decades, and their presence here and their work are well known to the local population. Therefore, one must reflect on the reasons why these children are not going to UNICEF for help and turn, instead, to the LTTE for refuge. This in spite of the fact that UNICEF has the largest child protection team operating in this island compared to their missions elsewhere in the world.
One obvious explanation is that UNICEF does not take on resource-intensive responsibilities like that of caring for children at risk. The LTTE, on the other hand, has extensive child welfare programs in the Northeast exceeding any available in the rest of the island.
The latest UNICEF list handed to the LTTE in June 2006 has 1387 names. There are several sources of error in the UNICEF list. Firstly, many youths in the list are well above the age of 18. Secondly, of these 1387 names, 54 are known to have been released, although UNICEF has not removed them from their list. In a previous UNICEF list, the LTTE has noticed several triplicates and duplicates and pointed it out to UNICEF. Even the latest UNICEF list has a few duplicate names.
The LTTE believes that many names in the UNICEF list are outdated. Many names could have entered the UNICEF list, for instance, without the youth ever formally joining the LTTE.
In relation the last type of error in the UNICEF list, we would like to draw attention to the small project the LTTE carried out in March 2005 in the Kokkadichcholai area of Batticaloa. Of the 80 odd names from Kokkadichcholai in the UNICEF list, 25 were located living with their parents. That is a minimum 40% error rate.
Bearing in mind the presence of many errors in the UNICEF list, one could still study the breakdown of the latest UNICEF list. Given that more than 800 of the youths in the list are now over the age of 18, UNICEF’s call for the release of these youths is not based on any international human rights standards. It can only be viewed as a desperate attempt to boost the numbers in their list with the view to discredit the LTTE. When viewed against the silence of the UNICEF in the face of horrendous attacks on children by the GoSL operated forces, the above view is further reinforced.
*************************************************************
Who erred? UNICEF or AP?
by LTTE Peace Secretariat website, July 4, 2006
In a report on 4 July, issued by Associated Press from Batticaloa, Mankerni, UNICEF is quoted as saying,
“The Tigers, who have a well-documented history of using child soldiers, abducted 64 children in April and May, UNICEF says”.
There are two parts to the statement. One is, “The Tigers, who have a well-documented history of using child soldiers”, and the other is “abducted 64 children in April and May.”
The historical context of the first part of the alleged UNICEF statement renders this part of the statement misleading and hides the ambiguities within it. For a description of this historical context that is full of contradictions, the reader is referred to the postings [above].
To interpret the second part of the alleged UNICEF statement, one can hypothesize,
Case 1: AP quoted UNICEF wrong.
Case 2: UNICEF did make the statement and it is true.
Case 3: UNICEF did make the statement and it is wrong.
Case 1: If this is the case, then AP should realize that such errors are a serious injustice to the Tamil struggle. Truth, particularly on this issue, is all-important. The LTTE would like a correction from AP if they quoted UNICEF wrong.
In order to analyze Case 2 and Case 3, some facts based on the UNICEF list handed to the LTTE on 27 June is relevant. According to this UNICEF list, 43 underage youths have joined the LTTE in the months of April and May. Of these 43, 26 are from Kilinochchi and Mullaitivu (Vanni) and another 17 from other areas.
Case 2: If this is the case, is the LTTE supposed to have abducted all the 43 in the UNICEF list and 21 more children as well? It is up to the reader to believe UNICEF unquestioningly or use one’s intelligence and start asking questions.
Case 3: If this is the case, then what is UNICEF up to?
|
Home