September, 05 2008, 03:17pm EDT
India: All Sides Using Children in Chhattisgarh Conflict
Rehabilitate Children in Armed Groups
NEW YORK
Indian security forces and Naxalite rebels should immediately end the
use of children in the conflict in Chhattisgarh state in central India,
Human Rights Watch said today. Using children under age 18 in armed
operations places them at risk of injury and death and violates
international law.
All parties to the Chhattisgarh conflict have used children in armed
operations. The Naxalites, a Maoist armed group, admit that it is their
official practice to recruit children above age 16 in their forces, and
have used children as young as 12 in armed operations.
Government-backed Salwa Judum vigilantes have used children in violent
attacks against villages as part of their anti-Naxalite campaign. The
Chhattisgarh state police admit that they had recruited children under
age 18 as special police officers (SPOs) due to the absence of age
documentation, but claim that all children have been removed from the
ranks. However, Human Rights Watch investigators in Chhattisgarh found
that underage SPOs continue to serve with the police and are used in
counter-Naxalite combing operations.
"A particular horror of the Chhattisgarh conflict is that
children are participating in the violence," said Jo Becker, children's
rights advocate for Human Rights Watch and member of the research team.
"It's shameful that both India's government and the Naxalites are
exploiting children in such a dangerous fashion."
Human Rights Watch urged the Indian central and
Chhattisgarh state governments to develop a scheme to identify,
demobilize, and rehabilitate both underage SPOs and children among
Naxalite ranks.
The 58-page Human Rights Watch report, "Dangerous Duty: Children and the Chhattisgarh Conflict,"
updates information on the use of children by all parties to the
conflict, the harm they have suffered, and the adverse impact of the
conflict on children's education. The report is based on information
gathered from more than 160 interviews with villagers, Salwa Judum camp
residents, police, SPOs, and former child Naxalites in Chhattisgarh
state.
Human Rights Watch found that since mid-2005 the
Chhattisgarh police have recruited and used an unknown number of
children among the more than 3,500 in Dantewada and Bijapur districts
of southern Chhattisgarh. Most SPOs are recruited from indigenous
tribal communities that have been displaced to Salwa Judum camps. They
assist government security forces in counter-Naxalite paramilitary
operations in the region. Many eyewitnesses of joint raids by
government security forces and Salwa Judum members described seeing
dozens of children dressed in police uniforms armed with rifles.
Several camp residents recounted how police and Salwa Judum members
urged them and other children to enroll as SPOs, and they recounted
recognizing children who were school dropouts serving as SPOs.
In late 2007, the Chhattisgarh police admitted to Human
Rights Watch that they had accidentally recruited underage SPOs, but
claimed that they had since removed around 150 officers from the ranks,
including children. While there is no evidence of new SPO recruitment
since March 2006, both SPOs and community members confirmed that SPOs
under age 18 continue to serve with the police. Several SPOs
interviewed by Human Rights Watch said that the police had recruited
them when they were underage, and boasted that they continue to serve
at the forefront of dangerous armed operations. They were also unaware
of any initiative of the Chhattisgarh police to identify and
rehabilitate SPOs that were underage. None of them reported being asked
to produce age-related documentation or having undergone age
verification tests in the recent past.
In July 2008, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs denied
as "absolutely false" Human Rights Watch's finding that underage SPOs
were recruited by the Chhattisgarh police. This denial contradicts the
Chhattisgarh police's admissions both to Human Rights Watch and to
government bodies such as the National Commission for Protection of
Child Rights, that they had recruited underage SPOs.
"Police recruitment of children as SPOs has made these
children prime targets for Naxalite reprisals," said Becker. "Instead
of vacillating between admissions and denial regarding their use of
children, India should act to immediately conduct age verification
tests for all SPOs, remove those under age 18, and provide them with
education and alternative employment."
Even after three years of their initial recruitment, the
Indian central and Chhattisgarh state governments have yet to develop a
rehabilitation scheme for those underage SPOs they have allegedly
removed.
Naxalites in this region have recruited and used children
for more than a decade. They deploy children to gather intelligence,
for sentry duty, to make and plant landmines and bombs, and to engage
in hostilities against government forces. They organize children
between ages 6 and 12 into bal sangams (children's
associations), indoctrinating, training, and using them as informers.
Typically, children above the age of 12 are recruited into other
Naxalite ranks and trained in the use of rifles, landmines, and
improvised explosive devices. Children in Naxalite dalams
(armed guerrilla squads) are involved in armed exchanges with
government security forces. Even those children who are not part of dalams
are at high risk, as evidenced by an SPO who said he was instructed to
open fire on a group of children, believing them to be a Naxalite
street theater troupe.
"Naxalite use of children in the name of a 'people's war'
is completely unacceptable," said Becker. "Naxalite commanders should
release all children from their ranks, and take strict measures to
prevent further recruitment, training, and use of children in any
capacity."
Children who desert Naxalite ranks and surrender to the
police seeking protection find themselves in a vicious cycle. Not only
are they subject to brutal reprisals by Naxalites, but they may be
re-recruited as informers or SPOs by the Chhattisgarh police, under the
garb of "rehabilitation for surrendered Naxalites."
Human Rights Watch also found that the Chhattisgarh police
have arbitrarily detained and beaten suspected child Naxalites. Child
Naxalites who are arrested by the police should be treated in
accordance with established international and national juvenile justice
standards, and a separate rehabilitation program should be devised for
them, Human Rights Watch said.
India is party to the optional protocol to the Convention
on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed
conflict. The protocol sets 18 as the minimum age for participation in
hostilities, for both government forces and non-state armed groups. It
also obliges the Indian government to assist in the rehabilitation of
children who have been recruited and used in violation of international
law.
The conflict in Chhattisgarh has also severely impaired
children's access to education. Once Salwa Judum began its operations
in mid-2005, many children stopped attending school for fear of
abduction. The Naxalites have destroyed many schools, ostensibly to
prevent their use for military or Salwa Judum operations. Schools have
been relocated to camps, where displaced children study in crowded
conditions, many of them separated from their families. Those camp
residents who want to return to their home villages do not have access
to schooling facilities. Children who fled across the state boundary to
Andhra Pradesh state seeking refuge from the violence in Chhattisgarh
have been forced to drop out of school due to the language barrier in
the Telugu medium public schools. Despite repeated requests to initiate
bridge courses or a Hindi medium school for such children, the
Chhattisgarh and Andhra Pradesh state governments have yet to take any
action.
Extracts from accounts:
"I joined the military dalam
when I was 13 or 14 years old. I was studying in an ashram school
[government-run residential school] - eighth standard - when Naxalites
came to my hostel. I didn't want to go. They said I could study until
the 10th [standard], but I should go with them. ... We got weapons
training, learnt about landmines, and a little karate. ... [Finally] I
had an opportunity to run away. ... One year after I ran away, both my
younger brothers (age 8 and 12) were killed [by the Naxalites in
retaliation]. They beat my mother and broke her arm. They burned our
house and took all our things."
- Former child dalam (armed Naxalite guerrilla squad) member, December 2007.
"The
police asked me also to become an SPO [special police officer] but I
refused because I did not want to become an SPO and commit heinous
crimes. I did not want to shoot and kill people. ... They do not ask
anyone how old they are. Even 14-year-olds can become SPOs if the
police want them to become SPOs."
- Poosam Kanya (pseudonym), former resident of Errabore camp, December 2007.
"In
Bhairamgarh, about 15 to 20 children dropped out of high school [after
class 8 in 2005] to become SPOs - both boys and girls. I live in
Bhairamgarh and many of these children also stay there. Now they are
all SPOs. Their entire schooling has been ruined - they can never go
back to school because they have discontinued education for over two
years."
- Government teacher in Bijapur district, December 2007.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Experts Warn of Toxins in GM Corn Amid US-Mexico Trade Dispute
"The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose."
Mar 26, 2024
Friends of the Earth U.S. on Monday released a brief backing Mexico's ban on genetically modified corn for human consumption, which the green group recently submitted to a dispute settlement panel charged with considering the U.S. government's challenge to the policy.
Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced plans to phase out the herbicide glyphosate as well as genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) corn in 2020. Last year he issued an updated decree making clear the ban does not apply to corn imports for livestock feed and industrial use. Still, the Biden administration objected and, after fruitless formal negotiations, requested the panel under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
"The U.S. government has not presented an 'appropriate' risk assessment to the tribunal as called for in the USMCA dispute because such an assessment has never been done in the U.S. or anywhere in the world," said agricultural economist Charles Benbrook, who wrote the brief with Kendra Klein, director of science at Friends of the Earth U.S.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market."
The group's 13-page brief lays out health concerns related to GM corn and glyphosate, and the shortcomings of U.S. analyses and policies. It also stresses the stakes of the panel's decision, highlighting that "corn is the caloric backbone of the Mexican food supply, accounting, on average, for 50% of the calories and protein in the Mexican diet."
Blasting the Biden administration's case statement to the panel as "seriously deficient," Klein said Monday that "it lacks basic information about the toxins expressed in contemporary GMO corn varieties and their levels. The U.S. submission also ignores dozens of studies linking the insecticidal toxins and glyphosate residues found in GMO corn to adverse impacts on public health."
The brief explains that "since the commercial introduction of GE corn in 1996 and event-specific approvals in the 1990s and 2000s, dramatic changes have occurred in corn production systems. There has been an approximate four-fold increase in the number of toxins and pesticides applied on the average hectare of contemporary GE industrial corn compared to the early 1990s. Unfortunately, this upward trend is bound to continue, and may accelerate."
The U.S. statement's assurances about risks from Bacillus thuringiensis or vegetative insecticidal protein (Bt/VIP) residues "are not based on data and science," the brief warns.
"The U.S. is, in effect, asking Mexico to trust the completeness and accuracy of the initial GE corn safety assessments carried out 15 to 30 years ago by the companies working to bring GE corn events to market," the document says. "The Mexican government is both wise and on solid ground in refusing to allow its people to participate in the experiment that the U.S. government is seeking to impose on Mexico."
"The absence of any systematic monitoring of human exposure levels to Bt/VIP toxins and herbicides from consumption of corn-based foods is regrettable," the brief adds. "It is also unfortunate that the U.S. government rejected the Mexican proposal to jointly design and carry out a modern battery of studies able to overcome gaps in knowledge regarding GE corn impacts."
"The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
Friends of the Earth isn't the only U.S.-based group formally supporting the Mexican government in the USMCA process. The Center for Food Safety sent a 10-page submission by science director Bill Freese, an expert on biotech regulation, to the panel on March 15. His analysis addresses U.S. regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMO) along with the risks of GM corn and glyphosate.
"GMO regulation in the U.S. was crafted by Monsanto, now owned by Bayer, and is a critical part of our government's promotion of the biotechnology industry," Freese said last week, referring to the company known for the glyphosate-based weedkiller Roundup. "The aim is to quell concerns and promote acceptance of GMOs, domestically and abroad, rather than critically evaluate potential toxicity or allergenicity."
His submission notes that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "does not require a GE plant developer to do anything prior to marketing its GE crop or food derived from it. Instead, FDA operates what it calls a voluntary consultation program that is designed to enhance consumer confidence and speed GE crops to market."
"When governmental review is optional; and even when it's conducted, starts and ends with the regulated company's safety assurance—what's the point?" Freese asked. "Clearly, it's the PR value of a governmental rubber stamp."
"The Mexican government's prohibition of GM corn for tortillas and other masa corn products is fully justified," he asserted. "The U.S. government's case against Mexico has no more scientific merit than its sham GMO regulatory regime, and should be rejected by the USMCA dispute resolution panel."
In a Common Dreams opinion piece last week, Ernesto Hernández-López, a law professor at Chapman University in California, pointed out that Mexico's recent submission to the panel also "offers scientific proof and lots of it," including "over 150 scientific studies, referred to in peer-review journals, systemic research reviews, and more."
"Mexico incorporates perspectives from toxicology, pediatrics, plant biology, hematology, epidemiology, public health, and data mining, to name a few," he wrote. "This clearly and loudly responds to American persistence. The practical result: American leaders cannot claim there is no science supporting the decree. They may disagree with or dislike the findings, but there is proof."
The Biden administration's effort to quash the Mexican policy notably comes despite the lack of impact on trade. While implementing its ban last year, "Mexico also made its largest corn purchase from the U.S., 15.3 million metric tons," National Geographicreported last month.
Kenneth Smith Ramos, former Mexican chief negotiator for the USMCA, told the outlet that "right now, it may not have a big economic impact because what Mexico is using to produce flour, cornmeal, and tortillas is a very small percentage of their overall imports; but that does not mean the U.S. is not concerned with this being the tip of the iceberg."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Collapse of Political Ambition': EU Shelves Nature Restoration Law
"To let this go now means we go into European elections saying the European system is not working, we do not protect nature, we do not take climate seriously," said Ireland's environmental minister. "That would be an absolute shame."
Mar 26, 2024
Environmental ministers in the European Union on Monday warned that the bloc's credibility on heading off the global biodiversity and climate emergencies is in peril following the European Council's decision to remove the historic Nature Restoration Law from its agenda after the proposal lost key support.
"We inspired others, yet now we risk arriving empty handed at COP16 [the 2024 UN Biodiversity Conference]," Virginijus Sinkevičius, E.U. commissioner for environment, oceans, and fisheries, said in a statement. "Backtracking now is... very difficult for me to accept."
The law, first introduced in 2022 and approved by European Parliament last month, faced one final hurdle to passage with the planned Council vote, but recent protests by farmers over the new nature restoration requirements helped push some previous supporters to reverse their positions on Monday.
The Nature Restoration Law, which supporters said they still intend to try to pass before E.U. elections in June, would require member states to adopt measures to restore at least 30% of habitats by 2030, working up to 90% by 2050. Member states would be required to take action to reverse pollinator populations, restore organic soils in agricultural use, increase development of urban green areas, and take other steps to protect biodiversity.
Since the farmer protests began in France and started spreading to other countries including Spain, Belgium, and Italy, policymakers have offered concessions including delayed implementation of another set of biodiversity rules calling for the agriculture industry to keep 4% of farming land free of crop production to regenerate healthy soil. The European Commission also shelved an anti-pesticide law in February in response to the protests.
As countries announced their new opposition to the Nature Restoration Law in recent days, some ministers suggested the demonstrations contributed to their decision.
Anikó Raisz, Hungary's minister of state for environmental affairs, said the law would "overburden the economy" and cited concerns about the "sensitive situation" in the agriculture sector. Italy also said it was concerned about the biodiversity rules' impact on farmers.
The World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF) accused far-right Hungarian President Viktor Orbán, who has dismissed European climate policies, of being behind the "unexpected and clearly politically motivated change in Hungary's position."
Hungary's opposition "was left unchallenged by Sweden, Poland, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and Italy—who continue to either abstain or oppose," and "has now put the [Nature Restoration Law] in jeopardy again, giving Hungary's President Viktor Orbán the green light to further his own agenda and hold E.U. decision-making hostage," said WWF.
Eamon Ryan, Irish minister for the environment, accused other policymakers in the bloc of "buckling" before the farmer protests, which continued Tuesday, ahead of June elections.
"The biggest risk is the collapse of political ambition and will," Ryan said. "To let this go now means we go into European elections saying the European system is not working, we do not protect nature, we do not take climate seriously. That would be an absolute shame."
BirdLife Europe called on the E.U. the continue its efforts to pass the Nature Restoration Law before the session ends this summer.
"The E.U.'s reputation hangs in the balance in this critical year of E.U. elections," said the group. "Failure to make the law a reality also undermines the E.U.'s credibility and leadership on its international commitments to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises."
"This is definitely not the end of the story," Alain Maron, Belgium's minister for climate change, environment, energy, and participative democracy, told reporters at a press conference Monday. He added that the Belgian presidency of the European Council "will work hard in the next few weeks to find possible ways out of this deadlock, and get the file back on the agenda for adoption in another council."
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Under Fire for Downplaying Security Council Resolution as 'Nonbinding'
One expert accused the U.S. of working to "undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
Mar 26, 2024
Biden administration officials attempted Monday to downplay the significance of a newly passed United Nations Security Council resolution, drawing ire from human rights advocates who said the U.S. is undercutting international law and stonewalling attempts to bring Israel's devastating military assault on Gaza to an end.
The resolution "demands an immediate cease-fire for the month of Ramadan respected by all parties, leading to a lasting sustainable cease-fire." The U.S., which previously vetoed several cease-fire resolutions, opted to abstain on Monday, allowing the measure to pass.
Shortly after the resolution's approval, several administration officials—including State Department spokesman Matthew Miller, White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Linda Thomas-Greenfield—falsely characterized the measure as "nonbinding."
"It's a nonbinding resolution," Kirby told reporters. "So, there's no impact at all on Israel and Israel's ability to continue to go after Hamas."
Watch Matt Lee ask StateSpox about the passing of the UN ceasefire resolution. Basically the US position is it makes no difference and Miller calls 🇷🇺/🇨🇳 veto cynical.
Lee: Do you expect Israel is going to announce a ceasefire?
Miller: I do not
Lee: What’s the point of the UN? pic.twitter.com/FibaSKWjuh
— Assal Rad (@AssalRad) March 25, 2024
Josh Ruebner, an adjunct lecturer at Georgetown University and former policy director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, wrote in response that "there is no such thing as a 'nonbinding' Security Council resolution."
"Israel's failure to abide by this resolution must open the door to the immediate imposition of Chapter VII sanctions," Ruebner wrote.
Beatrice Fihn, the director of Lex International and former executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, condemned what she called the Biden administration's "appalling behavior" in the wake of the resolution's passage. Fihn said the administration's downplaying of the resolution shows how the U.S. works to "openly undermine and sabotage the U.N. Security Council, the 'rules-based order,' and international law."
In a Monday op-ed for Common Dreams, Phyllis Bennis, a senior fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, warned that administration officials' claim that the resolution was "nonbinding" should be seen as "setting the stage for the U.S. government to violate the U.N. Charter by refusing to be bound by the resolution's terms."
While all U.N. Security Council resolutions are legally binding, they're difficult to enforce and regularly ignored by the Israeli government, which responded with outrage to the latest resolution and canceled an Israeli delegation's planned visit to the U.S.
Israel Katz, Israel's foreign minister,
wrote on social media Monday that "Israel will not cease fire."
The resolution passed amid growing global alarm over the humanitarian crisis that Israel has inflicted on the Gaza Strip, where most of the population of around 2.2 million is displaced and at increasingly dire risk of starvation.
Amnesty International secretary-general Agnes Callamard said Monday that it was "just plain irresponsible" of U.S. officials to "suggest that a resolution meant to save lives and address massive devastation and suffering can be disregarded."
In addition to demanding an immediate cease-fire, the Security Council resolution calls for the unconditional release of all remaining hostages and "emphasizes the urgent need to expand the flow of humanitarian assistance."
Israel has systematically obstructed aid deliveries to Gaza, including
U.S.-funded flour shipments.
Farhan Haq, deputy spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, stressed during a briefing Monday that "all the resolutions of the Security Council are international law."
"They are as binding as international laws," Haq said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular