Thursday, January 13, 2000

Statement by Ambassador E. Michael Southwick
Head of the United States Delegation
Working Group on Child Soldiers
Geneva, January 13, 2000

Thank You, Madame Chair

The United States is well aware that the issue of the age of participation is the most controversial issue in our discussions.

Two positions on this issue have dominated our discussions. The first, 18, is deeply held by some delegations. We respect their views, but we believe this position is seriously flawed. It is a one size fits all solution, a needlessly simplistic solution, to a very complex problem.

Further, we reject the assertion that support for 18 should be a litmus test for whether a country cares about the fate of children. Let us stop these defamatory, condescending, and insulting tactics, these crude attempts at intimidation.

Let us agree on one thing: we all care about children.

The United States and many other countries recruit below the age of 18, when
individuals graduate from secondary school. We have a proposal -- an opt in solution -- that accommodates these legitimate national differences.

In the case of the United States, we believe that our practice of recruiting at 17 on a voluntary basis is preferable to forced recruitment at 18 on all grounds: moral, philosophical, political, social, and practical.

The fact remains, however, that neither side on the age issue has convinced the other that it is right.

To succeed at this conference, we must find a solution to this impasse. We believe the time is right for common sense, for finding common ground, for finding a compromise.

In the last year the United States has moved on its position. In ILO 182 we supported 18 for forced or compulsory recruitment. At this working group we have proposed 18 for non state actors. In both cases, we allow for no exceptions. If we adopt 18 for non state actors here, the number 18 is solidly established as the new international norm in the two cases where it makes sense and where it will have a practical effect.

What we ask for now is a small degree of flexibility on the part of this working group for the United States and others to deploy 17 year old volunteers. The logic of recruitment is deployment. We believe that allowing this flexibility would not undermine the purpose of this optional protocol. On the contrary, it would strengthen it by ensuring more widespread ratification and support, while paving the way for greater international cooperation.

In the drafting group on this issue we ask all concerned to work for a compromise. We offer the suggestion that a compromise solution would be far preferable to a divisive outcome to these deliberations, or worse, no outcome at all.

We also believe compromise is an acceptable outcome to the vast majority of delegations here.

Fellow delegates, the time has come to act. We can make history here if, in this first month of the new millennium, we can agree upon a protocol that strongly advances the interests of children.

We should not miss this opportunity.