Free the (Women Fighters And) Children?

The UN News Service reports:

Although the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) does not seem to be recruiting children in Uganda, women and children are still present in its ranks, and the rebel group is allegedly enlisting young people from neighbouring countries, according to a United Nations report released today. The LRA, which has fought a civil war with the Ugandan Government since the mid-1980s, became notorious during the conflict for abducting as many as 25,000 children and using them as fighters and porters. The children were often subject to extreme violence shortly after abduction, with many girls allocated to officers in a form of institutional rape. 'Owing to the apparent absence of LRA from Ugandan territory, there have been no recent cases of recruitment and use of Ugandan children, or other grave violations against children attributable to LRA,' Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon writes in a new report to the Security Council. 'However, children and women are still present in the LRA ranks, and there has been no movement on their release,' he adds. In addition, he notes there are reports alleging that the group has been recruiting children from southern Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the Central African Republic (CAR).

The detailed UN Report can be read here.

At a glance, I'm wondering: what does Ban Ki-moon think the presence of women in the LRA ranks has to do with the problem of child recruitment? While recruiting children is a war crime, enlisting adult women is not.

The Laws of War (Part the First)

Distinguished readers, scholars, and assorted vertebrate...

Seeing as how my dear colleague and associated devoted legions (of readers, I being the only person here to command legions in the traditional sense) love to question how trivial incidences of murder, rapine, and bad literature can be justified under the Laws of War, I feel it is incumbent upon myself to open that veritable Pandora's Box by asking, (solely for the benefit of the masses) - what are these so-called "laws" - in common terms, such that the average Hoplite can understand... Better yet, in terms so simplistic that even the Commander in Chief of the mightiest military the planet has ever seen can wrap his primate brain around them without having to make up words to make it all make sense.

Of course, a large part of the problem is, there are just so many laws! No less than 45 draft or complete documents, some ratified by many governments, some ratified by few. A notable example would be the 1938 draft of the RULES OF AERIAL WARFARE, which had as Article XXII the following: "Aerial bombardment for the purpose of terrorizing the civilian population, of destroying or damaging private property not of military character, or of injuring non-combatants is prohibited."

How this documented, if ratified, would have affected the outcome of WWII, where a major strategic element employed by the Allies consisted of doing just that is questionable.

In any case I propose the following.

For purposes of this discussion (which will by its very nature be prolonged) let us confine each post to dealing with a single document, or pertinent Article thereof, if a document has multiple key points.

Let us be thorough in asking all questions, raising such proposals for changes, and in short, performing such due diligence that, when we have completed our congress on the subject, we may be suitably ready to publish "The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Laws of War", which will no doubt become an International best-seller, and all us to both retire, or at the very least allow me to purchase a title and engage in all the myriad pleasures and vices thereunto pertaining.

For starters, I should think we might best begin by discussing how wars come to be. War, like sound, cannot exist in a vacuum; like a fire, it must be started. Therefore, we must have and aggressor and a defender, and we should define these terms.

The definition of defender - to ward off attack from; guard against assault or injury; one supposes the Random House definition will do quite nicely.

As for an aggressor, this requires a little more research. UN Resolution 3314 defines aggression as "the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State."

QUESTION - what about non-state actors?

Examples of aggression spelled out in Resolution 3314 include: "invasion or attack... any military occupation... bombardment by the armed forces... blockade of the ports or coasts..."

QUESTION - So, is it safe to say that, for the purposes of international law, an aggressor is any actor who carries out such actions?

I look forward to your learned discussion, and shall encourage you to choose the next subject for this discourse, although, should you move too slowly, I may act aggressively and put it forth myself. And I should note, that because I am but a simple man, perhaps it is best to move forward in an elementary manner, ie, having established the definitions of aggressor and defender, define when war may be waged legally, thence on to how it may be waged at the strategic, the operational, and finally, the tactical levels.

It's Realpolitik, Stupid

Warren Hoge offered a grim assessment in Sunday's New York Timesof the Responsibility to Protect Doctrine, popularized in UN circles:

"Three years after the United Nations adopted a groundbreaking resolution to help it intervene to stop genocide, even longtime supporters of the rule acknowledge that it has not helped the organization end the violence in Darfur.

The General Assembly resolution, approved in 2005, held nations responsible for shielding their citizens from mass atrocities and established the right of international forces to step in if nations did not fulfill this new "responsibility to protect."

The United Nations has tried to take the lead in Darfur, the crisis-ridden region in western Sudan. But it has been stymied by the failure of major member states to fulfill promises to support action and by the intransigence of the Sudanese government.

In addition, countries with advanced militaries have not come forward to answer United Nations appeals for the sophisticated aviation and logistics assistance that the force needs.

Darfur, in short, has shown that there is a great difference between gaining acceptance for a working theory and making the theory work."

Well, duh. No one who lobbied for the R2P thought that simply having the norm codified would lead to its non-selective implementation. New rules aren't simply magic bullets. Historically, genocides have been stopped where a powerful state with the means and motive (usually ulterior) stepped in.

But to say the R2P doctrine hasn't ended the slaughter in Darfur is to mischaracterize what was gained in 2005. R2P was never meant to end genocide itself. It was meant to legitimize such efforts when and where they happened to occur. It was meant as a response to China and Russia in Security Council deliberations, who have historically argued against any right of intervention in the internal affairs of states.

Judging by the fact that these countries now routinely abstain, rather than block, resolutions to try to 'do something' in places like Darfur, I'd say R2P is having an effect. That more isn't being done isn't for lack of international legitimacy. It is for lack of true political will.