Protecting Children from War
October 2002
Banner photo: Mie, Japan [©SEKAI BUNKA PHOTO]
Protecting the Least Protected
The SGI Quarterly recently spoke with Olara Otunnu, UN Under-Secretary-General and Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict, about the progress being made to protect the lives and human rights of children affected by conflict.
Olara Otunnu talks with children in Afghanistan
SGI Quarterly: Can you outline your mandate in addressing the needs of children affected by armed conflict?
Olara Otunnu: My mandate includes raising public and official awareness about the realities of children affected by conflict and instigating action by key decision-making bodies such as the UN Security Council, the European Commission, the G8 and so on. It also involves building a set of norms and standards, including the Optional Protocol to the Convention of the Rights of the Child and the ILO Convention against the worst and most dangerous forms of child labor, as well as encouraging those institutions which promote peace and security to consider the needs of children as part of their agenda.
I have also made a point of visiting situations of ongoing conflict and meeting directly with the parties to those conflicts with the intention of getting them to make commitments regarding ending the exploitation of children and meeting their needs. Finally, in post-conflict situations, such as Angola, Sierra Leone and East Timor, I visit to ensure that the concerns of children are central to post-conflict decisions and planning.
SGIQ: Why is it so important to protect children in war?
OO: In war those who suffer the most are children and women. The most innocent--those who had nothing to do with whatever distortions, whatever dislocations led to war--are children, and yet they pay the highest price. Children are least able to defend themselves against aggression, and they suffer the most both physically and psychologically. When you look at children in the refugee camps and camps for internally displaced persons, you see children who are uprooted, whose lives are being ruined. The children being used as child soldiers, the girls who are increasingly being systematically sexually abused--the highest incidence of terrible trauma is manifested in children.
Not only are children directly targeted in war, they may be orphaned, they may lose the chance of education and lack access to basic health care so that they are at direct risk from preventable diseases, and they may also be ruthlessly exploited as perpetrators to kill or be killed. Various conditions give rise to children's use as soldiers: manpower shortages typical of protracted conflicts, the fact that children are impressionable and can be easily fashioned into ruthless and unquestioning tools of war, or socio-economic breakdown that eliminates viable alternatives for survival.
SGIQ: What do you think it says about today's world that women and children are victims of war in so many ways?
OO: I grew up in a society where there were strong injunctions and taboos against the targeting of civilian populations, especially women and children, in times of conflict. Before declaring war, the elders would agonize and deliberate and examine their claim or lapir. War was the last resort and was never entered into lightly. Strict rules would be issued to regulate the conduct of any fighting. You did not attack children, women or the elderly; you did not destroy crops, granary stores or livestock. Even in times of war there was always the presumption of coexistence in the post-conflict period. Therefore you took great care to avoid committing taboos and acts of humiliation that would destroy forever the basis for future coexistence. Today children, women, the elderly, grain stores, crops, livestock--all have become fair game in the single-minded struggle for power, in an attempt not just to subdue, but to annihilate the "enemy community" altogether.
I believe that we must mobilize all our resources to reclaim and reassert those values and taboos that have traditionally been instrumental in protecting children and women in times of conflict.
SGIQ: In what areas have you been able to see progress being made?
OO: Firstly, there is greater awareness and visibility about this issue across the board. The issue of children and armed conflict has been placed on the political agenda of key policy-making institutions. We have been able to work with the Security Council and the UN more broadly to make the protection and well-being of children affected by war an integral and important aspect of the peace and security agenda. And, in the case of peacekeeping operations, there are now child protection advisers in place, and caring for children is considered part of the raison d'être of such operations.
The interests of children are reflected in the Northern Ireland peace agreement, the Lomé agreement on Sierra Leone, the Arusha agreement for Burundi. Traditionally, once war ended, children were marginalized and their interests forgotten. They were utilized as resources in the conflict and their suffering was exploited to generate attention, but then in the aftermath of war they disappeared. We're trying to make sure that the concerns of children will be central in post-conflict programs of reconciliation.
Standards in Place
In terms of the developing of norms for standards of protection, we've seen dramatic progress. The Optional Protocol of the Convention on the Rights of the Child banning the use of child soldiers is in place. The Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court (ICC) has entered into force and includes a strong agenda for the protection of children. The ICC statute establishes international criminal jurisdiction over individuals responsible for the most serious crimes against children; and it should serve as a deterrent to such crimes.
Altogether, we now have a very impressive body of standards in place.
There are also the commitments that have been made to me personally. In my visits to several countries--from Sri Lanka to Burundi, from the Sudan to Colombia to Sierra Leone, to discussions with the Congolese Rally for Democracy (RCD) of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)--both governments and rebel forces have made various commitments. Specifically, a range of commitments has been given, such as not to target civilian populations, not to interfere with the distribution of relief supplies, to observe humanitarian cease-fires for purposes of vaccination or supply of relief, not to attack schools or hospitals, not to use land mines, and not to recruit or use children as soldiers.
But above all, I'm satisfied seeing the children and youth themselves, engaging with them directly in war-affected situations, seeing the relief in their faces when there's a space for peace. Increasingly, we are seeing them engage as actors and advocates in this movement, and this is very important for me personally.
SGIQ: Can you give some examples of this?
OO: We have set up networks linking children within countries where they are affected by conflict and links with children in other countries such as Japan. We have published several novels with a specific message about children and conflict which are being distributed through a network of "Global Peace Schools," and we have initiated the "Voice of Children" radio project.
I noticed on my visits to war-affected situations that among the most important needs of children was the absence of information, entertainment, music--things that we take for granted everywhere else. So I have been advocating the establishment of local radio stations or programs devoted mainly to the needs and interests of children in such situations. For children in the midst of war one of the best things we can do is to offer information about education, reconciliation, families, health and entertainment as well as an opportunity for them to tell their own stories. In many countries-- Sierra Leone or East Timor, for example--radio is the most effective means of doing this. In the Balkans TV is also important.
SGIQ: How would you define your role, as someone who galvanizes others into action on the ground?
OO: My primary role is that of advocate, to raise issues and echo the concerns of those on the ground and to mobilize support for their efforts, both material and diplomatic. For example, I would negotiate with the European Commission to make resources available for rehabilitation of child soldiers which are then given to UNICEF. I also ensure that what is happening in different countries is publicized and reaches the media.
Former child soldiers at a demobilization center, Sierra Leone
At times I serve as a convener and intellectual catalyst, bringing UN agencies and NGOs together. I bring groups of concerned people together and pose ideas--such as creating National Commissions for War-Affected Children, or a research agenda to fill knowledge gaps on the impact of war on children. I may serve as a catalyst, but the action is taken by policy-makers or by those on the ground.
Another role is to be a "cheerleader," supporting those working on the ground who develop concrete projects in order to tackle the issues which are identified or meet various commitments made. These include UN agencies such as UNICEF and UNHCR as well as such NGOs as Save the Children Fund and World Vision International. For example, in 1999 the main rebel group in DRC agreed to stop fighting to allow the immunization of children, provided that the government did the same thing. Both sides agreed to stop the fighting to allow immunization--then I turned to UNICEF, WHO, the NGOs to do the actual immunization. In Sierra Leone, parties to the conflict agreed to release the under-age fighters in their ranks. So they were released to NGOs and UNICEF--that's the way it works.
SGIQ: What are some of the challenges you are facing right now?
OO: Overall, I think we need to continue to raise public awareness, moving from the current level of concern, where people are shocked to hear of the reality of children affected by conflict, to a position where such situations are considered completely unacceptable.
Longer term, the issue of how we sustain both awareness and action is very important. We need to get different local constituencies engaged in this issue in terms of their own programs--women's groups, teachers' associations, youth groups, NGOs, communities of faith. These are natural allies who are already concerned about the protection of children. I encourage collaboration and creating a critical mass among them.
Time for Action
A primary challenge is how to take the gains that have been made in terms of recognizing the right of children to protection and translate these into improved conditions in the daily lives of children in conflict. The international agreements--the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Geneva Conventions, Security Council Resolutions--and the commitments made to me are very significant. But words and paper, however impressive, don't protect women and children on the ground. The era of establishing norms of behavior has gone very well, but our challenge now is to embark on the era of application so that these commitments make a real difference on the ground. That is the most important single challenge.
There are a couple of ways we can do this. First, we need to campaign to make these norms and commitments better known where they should really be known--in such places as DRC, the Balkans, the Middle East--locally in conflict zones so that pressure can be applied to implement them.
We also have to develop a practical and systematic way in which we can monitor what parties in conflict are doing to protect children in accord with these standards. The Optional Protocol defines in very specific terms obligations not to use child soldiers. We need to use facts, objective facts, to mobilize political pressure on the parties in conflict and put them on the defensive.
If we were able to report in a systematic way, I believe that no fighting group would be able to continue to use children in this way.
We live in a world in which interdependence has become a central fact of international life. The warring parties in the different theaters of conflict depend to a great extent on the goodwill and cooperation of the wider international community. They seek political legitimacy and diplomatic recognition from the international community. They rely on it for trading in minerals and timber, as well as the supply of arms and money for the prosecution of their war efforts.
No fighting or rebel group is any longer an island unto itself--they all look over their shoulder to see what the international community's thinking of them, how they are perceived. Are they perceived as legitimate actors, or as abusers and terrorists? They all want to be Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. President tomorrow. In all the places I have gone they all have transistor radios, they tune in to BBC, the Voice of America, France International. They are acutely aware of what is being said. So the court of international opinion is very important today.
Finally, we need to ensure that the new policies that have been created are really owned by the institutions concerned, and embedded in their practices.
In the case of the Security Council, for example, it's very important to make their response routine, institutional. This way it's part of the regular agenda, and I don't have to be there each time to ask, "Where are children?"
Human Cost
SGIQ: Your role is, of course, primarily to draw attention to the terrible effects of conflict on children, but do you see yourself also highlighting the effects of war and conflict in general?
OO: The issue of children shines light on the unacceptable face of war. By highlighting the impact of war on children, we are highlighting the terrible cost of war on society, the human cost. When parties to conflict stop fighting to allow immunization or food distribution, this makes them stop and think. The actual concession may be done in the name of children, but in the end everybody who is vulnerable in the population-- women, old people and children--will benefit. From that viewpoint as well, not just at the moral level, protecting children can serve as a pivotal point for steps that benefit the population more generally. The needs of children act as a confidence-building measure and serve to de-escalate the conflict.
I say time and again that the time has come to ask those who are waging war to demonstrate the correlation between the costs for that society and the objective of the war, be it democracy, self-determination, a new society, ethnic autonomy, whatever. Most wars are being waged in the name of the people, to give them something better. The paradox is that those who end up paying the highest price, those who are being destroyed, are precisely the people on whose behalf the war is being waged--the children.
So we must now challenge those who wage war to justify both the legitimacy of their cause and the cost of realizing that cause. Who will be left after 20, 30, 40 years of conflict--whether in Colombia or Sudan--to dance in the streets celebrating the victory of that cause? The fate of children sheds a very particular light on this question.
SGIQ: Finally, what keeps you going personally?
OO: Two things. One is the children themselves. Seeing the completely unacceptable fate to which we consign them: it's indefensible, unacceptable, cruel, criminal what they go through in situations of conflict. We simply cannot let this happen. The other side of that same coin is that when there's the slightest sign of relief, of a space, of protection, of sustenance, we see this incredible sense of determination, of resilience and hope, and the face of a child brightens up. The children themselves are one reason.
The other reason is the ordinary people. Some very ordinary people, unknown, unsung heroes who I have personally met who are doing extraordinary things on the ground.
Bridging the Divide
I think of my visit to the village of Ruiigi in Burundi. We have all been told how in Burundi and Rwanda Tutsi and Hutu can never get along with each other. But in Ruiigi I encountered two remarkable women--Maggy and Beatrice--who by their examples and lives have challenged this.
Maggy is a Tutsi woman, who witnessed unspeakable massacres in Ruiigi during the upheavals of 1993. Children and women who had taken refuge at the residence of the Catholic bishop where she worked as secretary--children she tried to shield and protect with her own body--were all taken and murdered in front of her, sometimes by her own relatives. She became a revolutionary for peace and reconciliation among the Hutu and the Tutsi. She decided to build homes that would receive and take care of orphans and child survivors from all ethnic groups. I have visited three of these homes.
Beatrice, a Hutu woman, works with Maggy to take care of these children. During the problems in 1972 in Burundi, Beatrice fled to Rwanda as a refugee. There, she met and married a fellow Hutu refugee from Burundi. During the exodus from Rwanda in 1994, the family fled to Tingi Tingi in the DRC. When Tingi Tingi camp was attacked in 1997, her husband and eight children were all massacred. Beatrice worked her way back to Burundi, completely alone as she had left some 25 years earlier.
Within weeks of arriving, Beatrice ran into Maggy. The two women told each other their stories. They decided to make common cause across the Tutsi-Hutu divide. Beatrice decided to return to Ruiigi and joined Maggy in taking care of the orphans and child survivors. When I asked what it felt like to work at the orphanage, Beatrice said, "Taking care of these children with Maggy has given me back the dignity of a mother."
Inspired by such examples, I am determined that we must make the rights, protection and welfare of children--all our children--a common cause that can unite us across the boundaries of our political orientations, religious affiliations and cultural traditions. We must resolve to make our world safe for our children.
