Children in Armed Conflict?

A dear friend pointed me in the direction of a recent installment of The Current which began: “”Canada’s Foreign Affairs department has banned the use of the phrase ‘child soldiers.’ Currently, they will now be simply known as ‘teen terrorists.’”

I then listened on to discover that “my” Government has removed the words “child soldiers” and “international humanitarian law” from its vernacular, to be replaced with “children in armed conflict” and “international law.”  Additional articles can also be found  on the CBC website, and in the Embassy Magazine.

I am not impressed.  Below is the letter I wrote to Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon, telling him so.

Mr. Cannon,

I am a 24 year old Canadian (from Vancouver and a recent Dalhousie graduate) writing to you from Zanzibar, Tanzania.

I have just learned of the significant changes made in the language used by your Ministry, taking out the phrases ‘child soldiers’ and ‘international humanitarian law’ and replacing them with ‘children in armed conflict’ and ‘international law.’

I am gravely concerned about this, not only as a Canadian, but as an individual who like countless others values her basic human rights.   The legal and political differences between these terms is significant.  Aside from the simple fact that the original terms and their successors do not mean the same thing, both ‘child soldier’ and ‘international humanitarian law’ are used to ensure protection for those most vulnerable during times of armed conflict.  Such protections are not present in ‘children in armed conflict’ and ‘international law.’  As a Canadian, I find these changes particularly abhorrent considering the leading role Canada has played in strengthening international humanitarian instruments such as the International Criminal Court, the Ottawa Treaty, and the United Nations peacekeeping mechanisms.

I see no other reason for these changes than to ensure your Government receives the answer it desires in the Omar Khadr case.  This however, is highly undemocratic and I would not want to assume such intentions of you or your colleagues.

Therefore, I ask that you correct any misunderstandings I may have about the ability of Canada to continue enjoying its reputation of Protector of Human Rights after these changes are made.

Sincerely,

Caity Sackeroff

Advertisement

---