 Saving Child Soldiers: An Interview with Rachel Stohl
Valentina Pasquali – Washington Prism On December 10th 2008, the United States Congress passed a legislation establishing that governments involved in the use of children as soldiers may no longer be eligible for major U.S. military assistance programs. The legislation was passed unanimously by both the Senate and the House as part of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. Sponsored by Senators Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Sam Brownback (R-KS), the legislation restricts the provision of International Military Education and Training (IMET), Foreign Military Financing, Excess Defense Articles, Foreign Military Sales, and Direct Commercial Sales to governments using child soldiers directly in their own armed forces or that support paramilitaries or militias that do so. Center for Defense Information’s Rachel Stohl, an expert on small arms proliferation and children in armed conflict,, is among the people that over a ten year period conducted research and later provided briefings and reports to the U.S. legislators which helped them drafting and passing the bill. The Center for Defense Information (CDI) is a division of the World Security Institute. In her interview with Washington Prism, Stohl talks about the legislation, what it means for the United States and for child soldiers around the world, and the steps ahead. Washington Prism (WP): Can you explain to us some of the core mandates of the legislation passed by Congress last week? Rachel Stohl (RS): The legislation limits certain categories of military assistance to governments that are either using child soldiers or that are supporting paramilitary or militia groups that employ child soldiers. This means that the legislation applies even when a certain country’s armed forces might not specifically be using child soldiers, but we might have knowledge that a militia group allied with the government does. The underlying principle is that any military assistance that you give to the government would filter to that militia group. The countries that are on this list now, are the ones that are receiving U.S. military assistance at the moment and are known to employ child soldiers. As of today, the legislation could affect: Afghanistan, Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Uganda. There are two other countries that use child soldiers in their armed forces; Somalia and Burma. But the U.S. doesn’t provide military assistance to them, at least in the way with which the legislation is concerned. WP: Does this legislation only affect military assistance? Or is there any other form of economic assistance that is also taken into account? RS: No, it only concerns military assistance. More specifically, it only comprises five specific categories: IMET, Foreign Military Financing, Excess Defense Articles, Foreign Military Sales, and Direct Commercial Sales. The truth is that there are numerous other military aid programs, which the legislation does not affect. Moreover, the bill allows for a waiver for countries that are working to professionalize their militaries. This means that those that are already trying to stop using child soldiers will not be affected. This legislation is not designed to be a form of punishment. It is an incentive. So it’s a carrot, not a stick. We are trying to get governments to make sure that they are not employing children in their militaries or supporting groups that are. A military of that sort is not a professional military. And it is certainly not a military that the U.S. would want to work in close contact with. I have talked with many in the U.S. Marines and learned that it is very common for them, particularly in Afghanistan, to have to guard a check point with a Afghan soldier who might be fifteen year-old. Many of our Marines have fifteen-year-old children at home. WP: What do you think is the most immediate and practical implication of the legislation? RS: Well, for U.S. taxpayers, this means that their money is not going anymore to governments that support the use of child soldiers. It is important because tax payers want to make sure that their money is used according to the values that we uphold in the U.S. I think this is a huge achievement for the legislation. WP: Do you believe that the law has enough teeth to have an impact on the foreign governments and militaries as well? RS: As in all legislations, in this one too there are several loopholes and there still exist many ways in which military assistance can be provided in spite of this law. In that sense, this is a very symbolic victory, rather than a final resolution of the problem. However, it is also another tool that the U.S. Government has when encouraging governments like Uganda or Afghanistan to conduct itself in accordance to U. 
WP: While conducting the research that supported legislators in their aim to write and pass the bill, did you work with people and organizations from the countries involved? RS: It depended on the country. We have done significant amount of work with people in Uganda and many organizations I have worked with in the United States have programs there as well. We spoke to many child soldiers and to people that work to rehabilitate them. Afghanistan is a different story.
Page
[1]
2
|
