When is a child soldier not a child soldier? Roméo Dallaire sees language change as shift away from international obligations. By Laura Payton Published September 2, 2009

View story Email Comments To the Editor

When Omar Khadr was captured in 2002 and accused of throwing a grenade that killed one US soldier and wounded another, he was 15 years old. Over the intervening seven years, human rights activists and legal experts have argued his case falls clearly under international conventions designed to cover child soldiers.

Now, following revelations the Department of Foreign Affairs, under Minister Lawrence Cannon's direction, has moved to change its policy language from "child soldier" to "children in armed conflict," critics charge the new term is specifically designed to exclude Canada's most famous child soldier from the protocols. They believe it's a move specifically designed to relieve the government of an obligation to help him.

Earlier this month, the Conservative government appealed to the Supreme Court an order to press the US for Mr. Khadr's repatriation after two lower courts found his Charter rights had been violated.

The court will announce Sept. 4 whether the appeal will proceed.

Dennis Edney, Mr. Khadr's lawyer, has no doubt Mr. Khadr's case "played a role" in the decision to change the term from "child soldiers" to "children in armed conflict," and said that it may be a ploy to be used in court.

"Perhaps it's an argument they want to put before the Supreme Court to insulate themselves from criticism that they have not afforded Omar Khadr international protection," he said.

"Under various international instruments...they are required to urge that the US recognize international law and they haven't done so. Now they've got one way of getting out of it. They've just changed the definition."

However, in an interview at the end of July, Mr. Cannon said some of the modifications are semantics, but acknowledged others are designed to move the country's foreign policy in a direction decided by the government. He did not elaborate on which category the change to "child soldiers" fit.

General Roméo Dallaire, who started the Child Soldiers Initiative, a program devoted to ending the practice of using children for war, says the change is a significant shift away from already-established international protocols.

"It's an instrument of camouflage, of diplomatic camouflage, in order to defuse what is a requirement on the part of the developed countries to respond," said Mr. Dallaire, who sits as a Liberal senator.

He fears the switch isn't just to exclude Mr. Khadr from the protocols, but to allow the government not to get involved in any conflict featuring child soldiers. That big a move would have a sweeping effect on Canadian policy, he says.

"By the government deliberately eradicating any reference to child soldiers, it is specifically avoiding a requirement, in my opinion, of potential intervention, be it legal, be it economic, or be it by force, in conflicts where children are the principle weapon of the conflict," said Mr. Dallaire.

Mr. Dallaire believes there's an intentional shift happening in Canadian human rights policy.

"I think that we're fiddling on the margins of a fundamental philosophical change in the orientation that this country is being moved down," he said. "And we're just letting the steamroller crush us."

An ongoing criticism related to all of the language changes at the department, first reported in Embassy, is that there was no public consultation or debate prior to the government's decision—or even an announcement. Other changes include a shift to the term "equality of men and women" rather than "gender equality," excising "humanitarian" from the term "international humanitarian law" and removing the word "impunity" from some texts.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Cannon says the government has consistently acknowledged that Mr. Khadr was a minor when he was arrested.

"Accordingly, Canada has continuously demanded that the US Government take this into account in all aspects of his detention, treatment, prosecution, and potential sentencing," Simone MacAndrew wrote in an e-mail. "The choice of mechanisms put in place to try detainees is a matter for the US Authorities."

Mr. Dallaire says there is no consensus in the NGO world about changing the term "child soldiers," although there is a strong movement to protect all children in conflict. Mr. Dallaire says the "children in armed conflict" change, taken with the move away from the word "impunity," signal a deliberate decision on the part of the government to shirk previous commitments on the issue.

The United Nations Security Council has been pushing for "the more deliberate use of the International Criminal Court to bring these guys and girls who recruit them to justice, and [to] fight that impunity," Mr. Dallaire said, referring to an Aug. 4, 2009 UN Security Council resolution on child soldiers.

While the shift from "child soldier" to "children in armed conflict" has left the international and Canadian NGO community, and even foreign representatives, to guess at what the change represents, some civil society groups had actually been arguing in favour of using such a term for years.

"Child soldiers" generally includes only youth and children who act as armed militants, while "children in armed conflict" would theoretically encompass those used as porters, water carriers and in other support activities. It would also include girls and young women who are held as sex slaves or used to manage an operation's logistics. Essentially, it enlarges the definition to include those who participate in combat or are exploited by it, but aren't armed.

"Saying 'children in armed conflict,' on the one hand, is a very positive move because it extends that definition to include kids who are used in war in different ways and who are forced to support conflict, but they are not the ones that are picking up the guns and firing them," said Samantha Nutt, founder and executive director of War Child Canada.

While Dr. Nutt says most people in the NGO community would applaud the change if that were the underlying reason, she is concerned because of the possible implications for to Mr. Khadr.

"If this is a genuine move to more inclusive language around children in armed conflict, he falls under that category. Under internationally-accepted definitions around child soldiers, he fell into that category and now with this expanded definition he should fall into that as well," she said.

"Is this more political expediency as opposed to a genuine move to a more inclusive definition of children at war?" she asked. "I hope it's not principally about the politics surrounding Omar Khadr and trying to take some of the pressure off because he was used as a child soldier."

lpayton@embassymag.ca