|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| March 28, 2002 |
Senate Holds Hearing on Child Soldiers Treaty
Rachel Stohl, Senior Analyst, rstohl@cdi.org
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 AK47’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. ( Click here to see Becker’s full testimony.)
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. ( Click here to view Admiral Carroll’s full testimony.)
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.
Congress Begins Work on Supplemental Spending Package, Next Year’s Budget
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
During the week of March 21, the White House sent to Capitol Hill a $27.1 billion supplemental spending request to help fund the war on terrorism, homeland defense, and disaster relief related to the Sept. 11 attacks. While Congress recessed at the end of the week without beginning its work on the legislation, the supplemental will be an immediate priority when members return to Washington on April 8.
Because unexpected federal expenditures often do arise, the federal budget process allows for the enactment of special appropriations that are used to pay for unanticipated federal initiatives such as disaster relief or military operations. Last year, shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Administration requested, and Congress quickly approved, a $40 billion supplemental spending package. Roughly half went to the Pentagon, while the remainder was earmarked for rescue and recovery efforts in New York and Washington, D.C. According to the Department of Defense, the portion that went to the military for operations in Afghanistan will be exhausted in April. Pentagon estimates place the currently monthly cost of Operation Enduring Freedom at $2.4 billion.
More than half of the new $27 billion request -- roughly $14 billion -- will go to the Pentagon’s “war on terrorism,” with most of that -- $6.7 billion -- intended for military operations in Afghanistan. A further $4.1 billion will go for pay and benefits of National Guard and Reserve personnel activated to respond to the emergency.
The second largest portion -- $5.5 billion -- is for aid to New York. Of this, $2.8 billion goes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for disaster relief and $1.8 billion is intended to replace transportation infrastructure. The third component of the request is $5.2 billion for Homeland Security, almost all of which is intended for the newly-created Transportation Security Administration, which would receive $4.3 billion. Finally, there is $1.2 billion in foreign assistance to aid other countries in combating international terrorism.
While estimates about the total that the Administration would seek have grown steadily over the last few months, the size of the final request surprised and troubled a number of Hill veterans. In February, Pentagon officials were expecting a $12 billion to $15 billion request, with the military getting about half. Just two days before the request was submitted, Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK), top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, said that the Pentagon would receive about $12 billion of a $24 billion request. When the official request was released, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Budget Committee, expressed his concerns that the package would send the government further in to debt. "It just seems to keep growing," said Sen. Conrad. "It’s just taking it out of Social Security."
Yet, by and large the Hill responded positively to the request, and early indications are that it will grow further. Many members, particularly appropriators, still resent President Bush’s threat to veto the earlier $40 billion supplemental when members tried to boost the portion allocated for homeland defense. They believe that significant additional funding for homeland defense is needed now, not in October when the fiscal year 2003 budget, which contains $38 billion for domestic ant-terrorism initiatives, almost half of which is new spending, goes into effect.
Traditionally, supplemental request have grown while Congress works its way through the approval process, as members add funding for their own priority programs, and this year appears to be no exception. "I could easily see that supplemental being $30 billion to $35 billion before it leaves the station here," says G. William Hoagland, the Republican staff director of the Senate Budget Committee.
Each year Congress sets caps on the overall total spending that will be permitted in that fiscal year. Supplementals are generally funded by making cuts -- referred to as offsets -- in other areas of the budget in order to keep federal spending under these caps. Thus, supplementals normally represent a reallocation of assets and not new federal obligations. If, however, a supplemental is deemed by Congress and the Administration to be an emergency, then offsets are not necessary and the cost of the supplemental can be added to the federal budget without violating the existing spending caps. Given that the Administration’s request includes only $250 million in offsets for the entire $27 billion package, it appears likely that the final spending plan will have to be declared “emergency” spending, regardless of what it contains.
Pakistan Will Allow U.S. Troops to Cross Border -- Pakistani Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar has indicated that his country will be willing to allow U.S. troops to operate inside their border. "There is no problem: U.S. forces can cross the border into Pakistan if necessary -– we should discuss it," said Mr. Satter, according to a report in the Washington Times. It is unclear from his statements whether permission would be granted on a case by case basis, be a general permit in cases of "hot pursuit," or would allow longer-term temporary deployments of U.S. troops inside Pakistan, although this latter option appears highly unlikely. The United States has been pressuring the Pakistani government for greater latitude in conducting military operations along the Afghan-Pakistan border due to concerns that Taliban and al Qaeda fighters are crossing in to Pakistan for safe haven.
Navy, Marines, Consider Fighter Plane Cuts -- Navy and Marine Corps officials are considering a 30 percent cut in the number of new fighter aircraft they plan to purchase, while increasing integration and actually shrinking their squadrons. Aircraft affected include the F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" and the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). Under the proposal, the services would reduce the planned "Super Hornet" purchase from 548 to 460, and the planned JSF buy from 1,089 to 680. The number of squadrons would be reduced from 64 to 59, while the number of aircraft per squadron would be reduced form the usual 12 to 16 down to 10 planes. The services expect the proposed reductions to achieve a savings of $30 billion over the life of the two programs.
Elite Russian Troops Revolt in Chechnya -- the London Daily Telegraph is reporting that a growing number of Russian troops are threatening not to obey orders to serve in Chechnya. The most recent open act of defiance involves an elite squad of paramilitary troops from the city of Cherepovets who have issued an ultimatum that was published in the national newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda citing poor pay, equipment and leadership. This is just the latest in a series of open revolts amongst the Russian Interior Ministry forces, which are professional troops, unlike their conscripted counterparts in the regular army.
Quotation of the Week -- "This is a democracy. And by large, the people get what they ask for in this. And you're not asking," Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS), to Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, USN, Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Warfare Requirements and Programs, on the Navy’s request for construction of only five ships as part of its fiscal year 2003 spending plan, Military Procurement Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee hearing, March 20, 2002.
Watch SUPERPOWER: Weekly Global Affairs TV
"Superpower" showcases international television coverage of world events. Host Lisa Simeone and co-host Mark Thompson, Time Magazine correspondent, discuss current events with a regular rotation of foreign journalists, as well as other guests from the foreign military and diplomatic communities in Washington.
For information on where to watch "Superpower," check http://www.mhznetworks.org/cable/listings.html