Three Cheers for Democracy
Dear friends and colleagues,
As many of you may be aware, there have been significant changes made recently by the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs to Canadian policy language. Among these changes the terms “child soldiers” and “International Humanitarian Law” have been replaced with “children affected by war” and “International Law” (see my blog post below).
This is cause for serious concern as these changes limit the well-formulated protections offered in international legal instruments to those most vulnerable during times of war.
Copied below are two letters addressed to the Prime Minister. If you share the concerns raised in them, please send either the long or short version to our PM or your local elected representative. It is time that our Government was reminded that these changes do not represent Canadian values as they claim.
LETTER 1: LONG
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
My name is ___________ and I am a ____year old Canadian currently working in _________. It is with great concern and urgency that I contact you today. Having been born and raised in Canada learning about the free and fair democracy that we enjoy, I take great pride knowing my concerns will be heard and adequately responded to by your office.
I write to you today concerning the recent changes in the policy language of the Department of Foreign Affairs, included amongst which the terms “child soldiers” and “International Humanitarian Law” have been replaced with “children in armed conflict” and “International Law.” I am concerned about these changes for three main reasons: they remove key protections to those most vulnerable during times of armed conflict, they were made without adequate dialogue or consultation with the Canadian Public, and they indicate a move away from the significant contribution Canada has made in upholding human rights internationally.
Both child soldiers and International Humanitarian Law are key legal phrases with significant implications. When classified as a child soldier, young people involved in armed conflict are recognized not as perpetrators, but as victims in need of support. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, its Optional Protocol, and the Paris Principles are just a few of the widely accepted international legal instruments which address this issue, and Canada is party to each of them. Through these agreements, children who are used as weapons of war have their vulnerability recognized and are entitled to assistance they desperately need as they and their communities attempt to move away from a cycle of violence. Especially considering that the Paris Principles make clear that a child soldier includes not only those youth who carry arms, but also those who are used as porters, sex slaves, and spies; the ability to protect child soldiers and prevent recruitment as required through Security Council Resolution 1612 is critically hindered by the Canadian Government’s recent change in vernacular.
Similarly, the term International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has implications not present in its successor, International Law. Commonly known as the Laws of War, IHL over more than one hundred years has developed into an extensive series of protections to limit the devastation of armed conflict, at the heart of which are the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
I do not understand Canada’s move away from the use of this term considering the many years and international agreements that have allowed it to evolve to outline protections for civilians, women and children, aid workers, and prisoners of war to name a few. Furthermore, the fact remains that IHL is simply not the same as International Law, which refers broadly to inter-state legalities as opposed to the specific concerns which arise during times of war. Considering that we as Canadians find ourselves engaged in conflict in Afghanistan and as global citizens find ourselves in a world with dozens of conflicts (so many that only 3 years in the entire post WWII period have seen lower rates of war than 2008), most of which are fought in neighbourhoods and not on battlefields thus endangering even more civilians and women and children, a move that implies a limited dedication to IHL is gravely concerning.
Due to the significant repercussions and diplomatic messages sent in these shifts in vocabulary, I am particularly angry as these changes were made without adequate consultation with the Canadian Public. Although Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon claims that the changes are merely semantic, scholars and political analysts have agreed that this is not so, not least due to the immediate implications in the controversial case of former child soldier Omar Khadr. As one of the world’s most exemplary free and fair democracies, I am disappointed that my Government did not make public its intentions or engage its voters in dialogue on the issue. These changes indicate significant ideological shifts which should not be made without the input of Canadian citizens. As a minority government, I do not understand how your Administration can make changes in absence of public debate and assume that these reflect the values of the Canadian majority.
Lastly, as a Canadian proud of my country’s track record as an international defender of human rights, I worry that the direction your Administration is favouring puts at risk all that has been achieved by your predecessors. Canada’s key role in the development of international humanitarian instruments such as the Ottawa Treaty to Ban Landmines, the Rome Statute, and the United Nations peacekeeping framework are points of great pride for the Canadian public. I do not take lightly these achievements being jeopardized by a shift in policy ideology over which I had no input.
I trust that a honest leader such as yourself would not condone these changes in the hopes that it would allow for a desirable conclusion in the case of Mr. Khadr, or to limit the international responsibilities our great nation must shoulder to protect those most vulnerable throughout the world’s conflict zones (for example sexual violence victims in the Democratic Republic of Congo).
Unfortunately, I am unable to understand why else such changes would be made so discreetly. Considering the extensive repercussions of these decisions, I hope your office will consider opening this to public debate.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
LETTER 2: SHORT
Dear Prime Minister Harper,
My name is ___________ , and I am a ___ year old Canadian currently working in __________. It is with great concern and urgency that I contact you today. Having been born and raised in Canada learning about the free and fair democracy that we enjoy, I take great pride knowing my concerns will be heard and adequately responded to by your office.
I write to you today concerning the recent changes in the policy language of the Department of Foreign Affairs included amongst which the terms “child soldiers” and “International Humanitarian Law” have been replaced with “children in armed conflict” and “International Law.”
Although Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon has claimed that the changes are merely semantic, scholars and political analysts have agreed that this is not the case. The term child soldiers refers not only to those children forced to engage in active conflict, but also those who are forced to act as porters, spies, and sex slaves. A move away from this well-established legal term to the more ambiguous “children in armed conflict” does not allow the Canadian Government to be more inclusive, but rather limits its responsibilities to protect those most vulnerable during times of war. Similarly, the shift from International Humanitarian Law to International Law indicates a limited dedication to protecting the rights of those who tragically suffer the most during conflict. International Humanitarian Law includes protections for civilians, women and children, aid workers, and prisoners of war, among others. It is simply not adequate to replace this with International Law, which refers more broadly to inter-state legalities.
Due to the significant repercussions and diplomatic messages sent in these shifts in vocabulary, I am particularly angry as these changes were made without adequate consultation with the Canadian Public. As a minority government, I do not understand how your Administration can make changes in absence of public debate and assume that these reflect the values of the Canadian majority. As a Canadian proud of my country’s position as a leader and international defender of human rights, I worry that your Administration is putting at risk all that has been achieved by your predecessors. I do not take lightly these achievements being jeopardized by a shift in policy ideology over which I had no input.
I trust that an honest leader such as yourself would not condone these changes in the hopes that it would allow for a desirable conclusion in the case of Omar Khadr, or to limit the international responsibilities our great nation must shoulder to protect those most vulnerable throughout the world’s conflict zones (for example to sexual violence victims in the DRC).
These changes have not been made in isolation, but are part of a larger shift that includes your office’s change to policy language regarding immunity and gender equality. Considering the extensive repercussions of these decisions, I hope your office will consider opening this to public debate.
Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response,
