By Matthew Russell Lee, Follow Up on Exclusive
UNITED NATIONS, February -- Amid reports that the US already provides or is ready to provide aid to armed groups in Syria like the Free Syrian Army (FSA), on January 29 Inner City Press first highlighted and then on January 30 asked the US Mission to the UN a finding in the UN's then-unpublished report on Children and Armed Conflict in Syria:
"Throughout the reporting period, the United Nations received consistent reports of recruitment and use of children by FSA-affiliated groups."
The US has cited the recruitment and use of child soldiers to suspend US aid to armies of governments which had previously been receiving it. Inner City Press asked, so how could the US provide aid to a non-state group which even the UN has found using child soldiers?
The US Mission to the UN was asked, orally and then in writing, on January 29. Another mission said it would only comment after the report was published and became officials.
On February 4, the UK Mission to the UN provided this response to Inner City Press:
"The UK absolutely condemns the use of child soldiers in all cases, and strongly supports international efforts to stop the use of child soldiers. We urge all parties in the Syrian conflict to release any children held in detention.
"Armed conflict affects millions of lives around the world, and children are among those most vulnerable to the effects of conflict. The only way to secure the long-term future of Syria’s children is to find a political solution to the crisis.
"We have made clear our absolute condemnation of the use of child soldiers. As noted in this report, the use of child soldiers by the opposition is not systematic and is limited to certain elements. We have provided training to the Supreme Military Council of the Syrian opposition on the law of armed conflict, and will continue to work with them to help ensure that they meet their obligations under international law."
As Inner City Press noted, that might be OK for the United Kingdom -- but what about the US, including in light of the 2008 Child Soldiers Prevention Act, which provides for example:
It is the sense of Congress that—
(1) the United States Government should condemn the conscription, forced recruitment, or use of children by governments, paramilitaries, or other organizations;
(2) the United States Government should support and, to the extent practicable, lead efforts to establish and uphold international standards designed to end the abuse of human rights described in paragraph (1);
There are prohibitions on funding which can only be overridden for formal, public findings by the President. Given all this, Inner City Press on February 4 again asked two spokespeople for the US Mission to the UN its January 30 question: "could the US provide aid to a non-state group, the FSA and its affiliates, which the UN has found using child soldiers?"
Now we add: (in) consistent with the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008.
The report, now issued as a document of the UN Security Council under the symbol S/2014/31, goes on to recount:
"Boys aged 12 to 17 were trained, armed, and used as combatants or to man checkpoints. For instance, a 15 year-old boy reported being recruited in April 2012 by the FSA in Tall Kalakh (Tartus governate), and participation in military operations.... Also indicative was the case of a 16 year-old boy from Homs who reportedly joined the FSA as a combatant. In March 2013, his family reported to the United Nations that he was still fighting with the group."
And is this boy still fighting with the FSA? There is more to be said about this UN report, but as to the US and the recent report it is or is moving toward aiding the armed FSA, what steps will be taken on this UN report? Watch this site.
Footnote: While the US does sometimes answer questions, and is often pleasant as for example on a recent inquiry with the State Department about Sri Lanka, too often it does not.
The US Mission never provided an explanation of what several Security Council members told Inner City Press theUS Mission had said about its "policy" on how to described the Rwanda genocide; the State Department in Washington appears to have a policy of limiting its most timely information alternatively to "mainstream" -- often meaning dying or pro-Administration -- media and to those which support its positions. But we will keep asking. Watch this site.
