Importance of Resolution 1612

My name is Kathy Vandergrift. I am the Coordinator of the Working Group on Children in Armed Conflict. That’s a group of NGOs and we have as a common interest improving the protection of children and young people who are threatened by armed conflict around the world. Resolution 1612 is the latest Security Council effort to put some teeth behind the movement to protect children who are threatened by armed conflict. We have a series of Security Council resolutions; each one is stronger than the last. And so the pattern we see is that there are strong norms now to say, “We need to do a better job of protecting children who are caught in the circumstances of war.” But we are challenged to move that into actual action in the field. So Resolution 1612 takes a step in that direction by saying, “How can we implement our resolve to protect children?” That’s why it’s so important.

When we ask the Security Council to move on specific situations where children are threatened, we bring them evidence as NGOs. They know that the situation is bad, but they need to have official documentation in order for them to apply these resolutions in a specific situation. So we said, “Let’s build a monitoring and reporting system that will give us the kind of evidence that you need to take specific action in specific situations to protect children.” So that’s what this is all about: to give them the kind of documentation that we hope will put these principles into practice.

We are really appreciative that Canada has taken a lead role over the years, and we have seen significant progress in stronger norms to protect children. In 1980, when former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney hosted a world conference on children, child protection wasn’t on the agenda—there’s nothing in the outcome document. Between that time and the time of the UN Special Session in 2001, Canada led a concerted effort to address this issue. Already in the outcome document of that session, there is now a strong paragraph on child protection. Canada introduced the first resolution at the Security Council, when Canada was a member: Resolution 1261. And many of us in the community leapt on it and we just kept building on it. But we’re really at a key point now, to make this really effective for kids. So, for example, our last NGO workshop was entitled “Making Resolution 1612 Work for Kids.” That’s what this is all about.

Evidence from the field

Perhaps it’s linking what’s happening far away, sometimes, with those who can have an influence through the Security Council. So we have new international norms; I think we have a new global commitment to improve protection for children. Most states endorsed that during the UN Special Session. How do you link what’s happening in the backwoods of northern Uganda—or in Nepal, or in the Congo—where there is not great communication, with that, so that in fact we can do something about children caught in vulnerable situations? It takes getting good evidence from the field, and then it takes acting on that. So it’s that link, I think, that’s probably the biggest challenge.

Young people who know the issues, well, they’ve become a bit sceptical about whether anybody is going to be able to help them. They’re losing faith. So we have a great challenge, I think, to convince them that it is meaningful, that there is real protection for their rights in the world, and that we mean to make it work. And so it’s worthwhile for them to bring forward evidence that will allow us to do that, and then we have to use that evidence responsibly and make sure that there is real action as a consequence.

NGOs, of course, are often in a situation where they are trying to help people who are impacted. So they’re in the middle, in a way. For those NGOs who are working directly with young people, sometimes reporting is a challenge—it can put you at risk, so that’s something we need to address. Sometimes it’s just an extra requirement on a busy workload for which they have few resources. So I sympathize when they say, “My priority is to get those kids food and get them medicine, it’s not to do the reporting.” So, NGOs can play a very important role, but we need to convince them the system will work and that there will be a benefit at the end of it.

What’s needed? I think we are already seeing a culture change. Senator Roméo Dallaire will compare that culture now with what he experienced 10 years ago. And he will say: at that point it was acceptable in the world to abuse children as part of war, and now there is a culture change which says it’s not acceptable. We need that universally recognized by everyone. So that’s a part of the change we hope will come about by this. Secondly, perhaps we need one or two cases where the international community has showed its resolve to actually protect children. And if we have one or two successful cases, I can guarantee you, with global communications, the word will be out, and forces around the world will begin to say, “We can’t do this with impunity any more. We aren’t going to get away with it if we abuse girls as part of our attack on a village, let’s not do that.” So I’m hopeful; one or two shining examples would do a lot.

Creating awareness

Children are the most vulnerable. If we are not going to protect children, who are we going to protect? There is some tension between saying, “Children are the future” and “Children are now.” They are both. I guess another simple fact is that the majority of the population in most countries threatened by armed conflict is under 18. If we want to build security, we’d better pay attention to what’s happening to young people under 18. I think we in Canada and the United States forget about that because our population is aging, but these are young populations. Even now, I hear from people in Sierra Leone, for example, if we don’t find good livelihoods for that large group of young males that came out of the war, we can expect trouble in the future. It is a large portion of the population, and it is the most vulnerable portion of the population.

And now I will switch to a strategic reason for Canada. Canada has advanced the concepts of human security, of protection of civilians in armed conflict. The responsibility to protect has become a flagship of Canadian policy. The work on children has gone the farthest of any of the components of the human security agenda. We need to make this one work to show that the Canadian approach to human security can be practical, can lead to real results. We’ve gone farther than the work on gender. I’m not competing with them—it’s tied together. But we’re paving the path, in a way. So it’s so important that we make sure this one works. So our submissions to the government have been, ”Be persistent, Canada. Be persistent on this agenda, don’t give up now, don’t say it’s finished, keep working at it, and we can show how we can make international norms about responsibility to protect actually work.” And hopefully work long before we need to intervene with military force. We need to move this to the prevention side. We think we have a chance with this agenda. Will it work? A few years and we’ll know.