Thank you very much for having me. I'm sorry that I wasn't here to hear your talk and to be here for the other
discussions have been here this term and it won't happen in other countries.
Some personal matters came up. It had to be resolved before I could come.
Of course. Delighted to talk to you about this topic.
I come from a tradition which is very simple to describe and tough minded, empirical, thoughtful science.
And in five year retirement, I decided it was time for me to deal with an important part of an ethical issue that one should be concerned with.
And perhaps I could add some noise through coming out of the kind of background I come from now.
This August will be the 20th year since the famous book by Rachel MADDOW was published
for the United Nations on something had to be done about children and armed conflict,
and her writing had a tremendous impact on how the United Nations has acted.
And we're going to look over some grand data about this topic.
And I look at some general issues concerned with how to resolve the problem of children in armed conflict.
Obviously using quite a bit of numbers that I'll be putting up on the board.
It's all fairly preliminary,
but I think I might as well make the justification right off the top that nations who spend literally millions and billions of dollars developing,
for example, the Human Development Index. But they don't have any security on military security issues,
and they'll be having to therefore do some initial work in that field and hopefully can convince people to do a much better job.
The point that I want to begin with is how the situation is today in terms of children in armed conflict, in terms of the numbers of people involved.
And I'll be continuing to develop these numbers throughout the time.
If you listen to there are between a quarter million to a half a million children involved in armed conflict around the world today.
And that means they are acting as child soldiers. We're not talking about the other issues related to children.
Are they killed in warfare, hospitals destroy those kind of things.
I will discuss what we're talking about.
At least a quarter million children are actually employed around the world in some kind of military force or other.
Of course, there are various other ways to go at these numbers.
There is at least 20 million children by children right now.
I mean under 18. But I'll come back to the definitions later.
There are only 20 million children who no longer can stay in their own homes,
who have been sent all through out of their homes and into other parts of the country or into refugee camps in some other countries.
But at least at the start of this talk, I'm only talking about the 300,000 people that are directly involved in working for either
government armed forces or for other armed groups or violent armed groups within the country.
Now, the first most number biggest for me is that there are seven countries in the world.
By the way, the map you have is a consolidated map. When I'm done with the story before the map will make more sense for.
Right now, there are seven governments that actually continue to employ children under 18 in is armed forces.
It's also true that both countries also have some armed groups against them in their countries.
So if we want to think in terms of what those countries are, you can see that although as someone said,
it's only black Africa, it's not just black Africa, Myanmar, Afghanistan, Yemen.
And then the standard one, Sudan.
So Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Congo continue to have soldiers that are under 18 and often under 15 years of age.
There also are 14 countries that have soldiers in their armed rebellion groupings, but those include the seven countries already mentioned.
But and I maybe can put the picture up easier for you to see what happens here.
All this modern stuff, of course, is there are the countries that have children, rebel groups of children and soldiers.
And of course, we're seeing now that it's not clearly a black African issue.
Of course, we have the war in the Philippines, in Myanmar and so on.
And if you add them all together, the United Nations calculates that there are at least 55 what they call situations that is,
places or groups that together both or one of the partners uses armed forces or 55 different groups of them.
And you can find out this with a detail. I haven't looked at it,
but of course it is published by the United Nations and comes out of the fact that
figures from the secretary general of the United Nations every year in the springtime,
these groupings illustrate that the number of countries is profound.
And when we go to another slide in this one, of course, will show you how confusing this stuff can be.
Let's see if we can't go higher. You're never straight here.
Because there are countries that also have children in conflict who are neither government nor are the armed groups against the government,
nor are they just armed groups inside the country. There's another group of countries which the secretary general is not sure where to put them.
We know that they do have soldiers in some groups within the countries, but the Security Council has not had to deal with this quite yet.
We don't know each other quite well enough is the right word in the right strength of
character to say that these places should have to do something about their children.
They are a little bit afraid to take on countries like India and these kinds of issues,
even though they've managed to put it onto the longest list of all.
Now I'm going to go on to talk about this, but I want to make sure that you all know where I come from.
As I said this, I am not an expert in the case studies like that.
My brother's a member of this group. But for a number of children running this organisation who's a specialist in combination,
not an expert like you or I've just finished reading a book on Sierra Leone by a professor who studies pelican in King and he knows much more.
Well, if you're a mom than I've ever been, Laura, or in her case, the first case.
She's an expert in social processes.
In the second case, he's an expert in psychological variables and how they might explain the kinds of action that people undertake in these countries.
But this is not the kind of work that I am going to do.
And I think we'd be better to say my work this close to the machinery of government
kind of work than the study of individual countries and their social structures.
Now I want to make another general point before I start,
is that much of the literature of this field comes from the work of the Economist School of Public and Social Development inside of countries.
And the reason that that matters is because much of teaching in universities is and about the United Nations is related to economic variables.
Is the human development index,
is index in news and employers and should be rated for many of the people that have low human development in terms of the index
and so on and are literally I wouldn't say thousand hundreds of studies commissioned by the United Nations in this kind of field,
and then none, generally speaking, in the field of security where everything becomes a study of case studies or a case studies of international law.
We know that this is not a good argument. If you've read the book, the whole effect,
which I highly recommend you focus on fact argues that we can't really do economic
development without women security in the country do security of public and economic
development that for too long the discipline has been divided into approaches to
the discipline and rather than bringing the two together as needs to be done.
Of course I belong to that school already.
In my short time that I begun this project, the interconnectedness of the variables, both the moral and empirical variables.
The conflicting interests make it almost impossible to understand this whole subject.
What's happening is people are fragmenting themselves in the country studies or one peacekeeping group studies,
rather than understanding the totality of what the economists do when they talk about things like human
development indicators and how they can explain how money should be used within the United Nations.
And so I do not come from that school, and I won't be able to enlighten you about it.
And I was hoping that at least one of you would be an expert on the these each of these countries, the perfect world.
I would get together with people who are experts in this country in order to use the kind of work that I do to apply to these countries.
Now, one way to proceed to do this, as I said, is to try to examine the data of all the countries.
And what I'm going to put up on the board now is going to do perhaps for you.
And I have no objection at all if my my daughter teaches international security as a young person in the family.
We've got a couple of grandchildren coming, you know, why not the heat of the storm and the feet, of course,
immediately to get through everything or bother them, because one of the data really proved well.
Think of it as the first effort of women or an effort to see what happens when you begin to
look at all the huge variables that are involved in the study of data and these groupings.
And I'll come back to other ways. You've thought about the topic in a minute,
but I want to make sure this third nature of the third approach is just a list of the parties, and we come back to them.
It's key to this one. But it seems a bit out of order.
I suppose it is. Am I going the wrong way around? Let's get to the data.
Here. Now in order to determine whether there will be child soldiers.
Not where they are today. And what to do about that before they even arrive.
We have to do some kind of weak predictive kind of studies.
This is a huge effort to do this for all countries in the world are listed on the UN.
Those are listed on the left hand side. Then what I've done is taken all the major indices that are used in international relations.
So human development index, GDP per capita.
Poverty Index, the human development index, equal freedom indexes, fragile state indexes.
Because what's it now? This may be for you not don't take on my daughter's mistake and.
None of the other ones pertaining to honour. It is only when you add them all together for dual name countries.
Their economic development, whether they are free within that country, whether they have other problems.
And as an all together, you get a score that actually will predict through to the countries that have this kind of global violence.
And we know I told already from the book lawyers, in fact,
there's a lot of theoretical work coming up now about how development and security should be linked together.
Look what happens here and it's likely to go with May. Although remember now women are at least come up with a better design.
Give me a better way to do this. Do not today. Send me a note telling me how you would do it.
But of course Monaco and Nauru in some regard totally irrelevant.
There's not enough data there. It's that not enough data to predict growth.
But look what happened to work in that country that when you add all the scores together,
I don't think you want me to go through how this is done, but I'll send it to if you'd like.
It ends up that the country with the worst set of variables so ends up being Somalia.
And what does it have? It has no role with borders, and it has rebel jobs out in the countryside.
In other words, it has the highest concentration of power.
The next country, of course, doesn't fit at all because everything is kept secret there.
So it's going to screw up the balance in one way or another. But what happens over the Central African Republic?
Let me just use the example. It's 25th worst country in terms of corruption.
It's the third most fragile state. It has the lowest GDP per capita.
It has the second worst in terms of human development. Is worst in terms of freedom.
It's the worst grouping and it is the third time in terms of economic freedom.
And guess what? It ends up the sixth. Already were predicting two countries that will have the possibility of having child soldiers.
Now, of course, I cheated because what I should be doing to you is that you have had the blank table up here,
and then you should have said, well, you know, they've got Trump or they don't have.
And of course, India you'll see what I've got actually is the correlation or by the colour of the map.
So all the countries that have orange have both government and rebel soldiers.
All the countries that are just yellow have opposition forces, a violent, non-state actors.
And the wounds of the ones that. Well, there's some debate about the Security Council, not about what happens.
We're predicting almost every one of them. Let's move down here and see what happens now.
I'll be darned as the indicators get better. The number of them having child soldiers decreases.
Right. And what should happen? They're fading right now.
I'll be damned. And what's the last one? That is why I really wish in that was her.
Because she was going to be my old player. She was going to look at this data and he was going to say, that is not you know, she said it doesn't work,
Bob, because Colombia's relatively well-off compared to the others, but they do have problems.
She would have forgotten to tell you that this past week. But they have negotiated a treaty, Security Council in Colombia.
In effect, the day the pilot predicted something will happen, the future violence.
But one could make the argument that, in fact,
this data predicted so well that we actually knew what country was going to get rid of children with arm arms and were acting against the government.
Then.
In fact, we have had in the past week an agreement between the park and the government and United Nations on getting rid of children armed conflict.
I wonder to see that, because you can see that we if we go on through it,
you'll see that there are three countries will never say none of them, that once you get a better index so you can see what happened,
the lower your score or your score on my index by how much higher the probability is that you'll end up with children are either from
the government or from the rebels who in fact are getting some data here that's looking about as good as you get in social sciences.
And with a little respect to our economists to do other kind of work in the United Nations,
I think we're making better predictions than there are just on that data alone.
Now, what's causing all this? Why is this such a easy set of variables to understand and to start to figure out what's going on in the world?
Let me I think we have to be careful doing this.
First of all, you'd have to start with what are the big global variables affecting the world?
I'm going to skip that for now, but I would like you quickly to see this.
That is the nature of the world has been changing, changing and changing.
And the literature of international relations and certainly of governments taking over and events departments have not been keeping up my opinion.
Just take a look at this. This is my effort to typologies the old world and the new world.
We still have state based territory, borders and resources.
I know we've got the left wingers who say, in fact, all countries, all over the states have in fact, a remain in place.
But we have tremendous drive now of failed states, state of state and people ruthless inside and around state,
where the state based territory borders and resources.
Now we have identity based interests, ideological and the evil nation, that mystery, religion, global growth,
all these kinds of other things that are crossing between states, states and no very easy way to see it.
State building of the police have always been have a hierarchical structure of one kind or another.
But today we have many more movements networked rebels, individual, and we have kind of flat structure.
The security dilemma everybody is ever taught. International relations begins heritage.
But then this country increases in security. It decreases other countries security.
And the security dilemma was, in fact, very much involved in ill let's call it 911.
Nobody after 9/11 dealt with the security dilemma, and ubiquitous insecurity is come as much more.
But of course, we're always going back to asymmetric, symmetrical warfare, civil war, terrorism.
Of course, until very recently,
most criminality was the inside of states and criminality with state based now and much more international crime and drugs, etc.
I technology was the problem before, but now we have both I and will technology before minimising collateral damage.
Now we have macro. I think the damage is the total difference in the psychology.
Let's say with the Geneva Conventions, where are you trying to minimise the the collateral damage when people say, well,
who gives a damn about them was just bomb or I have to fight terrorism, set off a bomb in downtown Cairo and kill many people.
You're changing to a totally different notion of what is the world consists of.
Before we're talking about countries having victories of defeat, then a revival of religious differences, normal global fanaticism.
Before we said no,
the weapons of mass destruction and some people even started to think now it would be acceptable to have weapons of mass destruction.
I'm sure nobody in this room does. But still, the idea is more problem than it was just very recently.
This, of course, leads to a whole bunch of new transnational threats, which I'm not going to discuss today because of the concentration on children.
But is the changing nature of security affecting the way we have to think about children?
And of course, we know that terrorism is on the rise. Counterterrorism has been involved with diversity of armed actors.
Organised crime and asset wars are now more problem. They were children are now seen as weapons of war.
There's the proliferation of small light arms. The effect of cluster munitions of landmines is involved with children as much as adults.
Just quickly going. Using. One of them as an example.
A AK 47 is light enough today, and that used to be the only grown mature man, not male to small group, still carrying an AK 47 round.
But now a child of ten years old, ten years of age, can strip the weapon, hold it and shoot people.
And you could very well be in trouble with all the difference of life.
And this is true of not only this particular weapon, which I'm using example, but many other kinds of weapons as well.
Children are smaller things are more things that have been your workers, companions and intelligence operation.
They can be of all of them. Of course, this is not my kind of study for today,
although I would tell you that the Security Council have now added to the special representative on children,
and we have now added a women and conflict, a women and exploitation new assistant to the secretary general as of a couple of months.
Revenge, suicide, terrorism. No more. Thorgan is very much on the rise and so on.
I think you've got the big picture.
One can go from the changing variable about the world we live in to what is happening in terms of children now grave violations.
From a United Nations point of view, there are six grave violations in this park.
And in most of the research and most of the writing and actually most of the work done by the United Nations, only one ends up being covered.
This is the recruitment or use of child soldiers. Can't talk much about how to stop killing children in Syria.
It's not that we don't want to do that. Is that how do you get it in advance of it?
If you think of the International Treaty on Children and the protocol,
which tells you ages or when children can be in a military or be in a known government, terrorist movement or violent grouping.
Basically the rule of the fold is likely to be something like that for a long time.
Let's make sure we get it right on in terms of compulsory recruitment.
They have to be 18 and above, but if they're volunteers, they can be between 16 and 18.
The reason the data is skewed therefore, and people never quite get the message.
I did not for a long time. Is that the ages 15 to 18?
You're not supposed to put the children into armed conflict. So the American military, for example, criticises the age 18 and does admit people in 17.
And I think that the British the military does well, but they're not supposed to be put in harm's way.
So the recruitment and actual use of them in conflict and I think that's true in the UK,
although I haven't had a chance to talk to you, but I'd be glad to do so.
The the rest of these are all tied to international law, either humanitarian or human rights law,
which I'll come to the second about abduction of children, attacks in schools or hospitals, and the denial of humanitarian aspects.
Now, the numbers I used before, the 300,000, the listing done by the United Nations about these people does not include any of these.
But my wife. I've been trying to discuss that at lunch. Why is that the case?
Because everything is the case. Because the United Nations cannot make up the rules of war.
Well, you can't bomb off them. We come on. But then somebody for bombing hospital or for using a school, for a shelter, for some platoon.
We can do things to say the wrong and use the international law and practice it.
Absolutely. The International Criminal Court later and something like that.
But in the short run,
the only thing we keep coming up is how many children are actually recruited into a groupings either by the government or by its opponents opponents.
Now, let me try one more crack at this.
Practically everything I was do today has been evolving in the last 20 years.
We don't have much of a history. You'll have your go to lecture next week.
So movement much more impact from the International Criminal Court than I am.
But, you know, I think both of them you'll know everything about a human rights law, but not anything about what an AK 47 feels like.
It is very hard to put the whole picture together.
In the old days when I was a young Oxford student, we call the holistic approach, and nobody does that anymore.
I get rid of all the fragmentary study because the role of intellectual was to put it all together,
to put it all together and not part of the fragmenting it all into bits and pieces.
So here we have an effort. I've already showed you all the groupings.
Let me show you the data. But the group and then the game there.
The world is changing so rapidly that it's affecting the variable.
We're involved with Jordan in our conflict. Now I want to quickly go over what's happening in terms of all the rules about this
and then conclude on one sec here and get your advice as to where to go next.
First, in international law, international humanitarian law, international criminal law,
the office of Protocol, which I've already said is the protocol,
which says what agencies are allowed is allowed to have in international law to hire children, what age I know or to compel them into the military.
I don't intend to go through this. Are there any international lawyers in the room?
Rather than have been, I was scared to death. There'd be somebody now the whole time on this topic.
Clearly this was vital. This they have pushed further ahead because of topics like International Criminal Court.
And so I'll come back to the International Criminal Court with all the different political scientists involved.
But, of course, one would want to examine all of these laws and treaties and how they affect the world of international relations.
Obviously, I'm not trying to discount this guy or anything.
What I am more interested in is the United Nations machinery itself about children in armed conflict.
Everybody knows the Security Council has 15 members.
Five have a veto. And that's going to affect all other subsidiary organs of the United Nations.
But they don't know much about how the issue will end.
The children are in conflict as having heard the council sets up a working group.
Not working group is consist of 15 members.
They meet privately. They don't like to tell us much about what they do.
At the present time, Malaysia is the chair and Senegal of the vote.
Here is my opinion. The present leadership is relatively weak in terms of getting things done.
When the French they control the security, they were driving it forward to a new set of responsibilities at the institutions.
But at the present time, it's mostly status quo.
It's difficult to get things done in that committee because there's always them from all of the countries are friendlier.
So if you're committed and you'll have a country in the middle of 15, that's your friend.
If you're from Yemen, you've got the country that's your friend and can prevent action because of the friendship.
I'll come back to the friends another point later, but the point is that they operate on a unanimity principle.
Essentially, it goes like this If you don't say anything, it's okay.
But if you raise your voice, you criticise it.
It's that, Oh, you're not going to get a lot of action of inactivity about the children armed conflict issues.
Since 20 years now, we've had a special representative, the secretary general,
whose whole career and job is to look after this issue for the secretary general.
She's now Nigerian. She's a wonderful lady. And you're ready for a one person.
Got it right yesterday with my great moment. I'm going to be joining the huge volume of staff and the recordings of these people.
How many people do you have working for? I mean, before I knew it, I used the government department radio in the department.
No matter what department, no one's defence.
That's not a good one for me. In my mind.
If my Department of eight professors now we think that they do know is exactly how many historians of the world.
And look at what it is. No, never mind. And.
She only has nine employees. All of international law, all of these countries are from 55 different instances.
Right. In 24 different kinds of cases going on around the world.
Every peacekeeping unit is told they must now look after questions related to children and our soldiers and most peacekeeping missions.
They actually have a child protection officer with them actually assigned to go with the soldiers into the field.
More than half of them have left. And all this reports back to her.
I like her very much. I think she should have her staff quadruple.
Totally ridiculous. Now, what is she in charge of? Have to go the next fight to do.
Apologise for this. We've got time to go a little bit more. Yeah.
Here's what happens out in the field. If you've never seen this, I think you should.
And most people here in the military, I think somebody in our in the military, the armed forces group, remember the 55 of them.
They recruit and use some from the UN country team that's there.
It can be a peacekeeping mission. It can be a political mission.
It could be as it was in Colombia. A it has a U.N. organisation.
It may be a national official, but the senior U.N. person there will be in charge of a UN team,
and they are required to monitor and report on all acts of children armed conflict.
That then is made into a system which then looks at it again,
and the rest is then published by the Secretary General in his annual report called The Shameless.
This means that if you are a general in the Congo and you employ a child under 18,
you might find her name listed in the Security Council annual register.
And I'll be coming to this because sanctions are related to how we could treat you as a general in the Congo or you're pretty far.
Picking on other people. The UN country team recommends the Secretary-General.
It puts him on the list. Well, this comes out once a year in April, May, June,
and at least 55 entities are interested where child soldiers are being used by military around the world.
As I mentioned before,
the woman in charge of that I just mentioned to you is the UN Special Representative for the General Panel on Children Armed Conflict.
She has a staff of nine. She is also responsible to negotiate action plans with every government.
An action plan is a plan that the United Nations gets.
The soldiers of a particular area, of the government area to sign and say how they'll get rid of children by using armed conflict.
And so we give them some credit for what is happening.
Every single government in the world which had armed children is now signed some kind of action plan.
So we have some agreement. And Jan level I just heard from here on the agenda we over here but can actually escape from being named any more by
signing an action plan government and until those action plans are part of the charter of forcing states to comply.
Ours is a little harder to get an action plan now with the rebels,
some violent terrorist or anti-government group that are out in the jungle and who don't want you to tell them what to do.
But we would like to get action plans with every one of these entities.
There are also some problems here.
The working group, the Security Council, doesn't want to give them enough money for them to go and investigate all the cases.
And everybody is nervous about them interviewing help.
You can help me work this out. Under what circumstances should U.N. personnel or peacekeepers be given the job of going and interviewing violent,
aggressive, non-state actors often take a route, make a deal.
You don't have any children or anybody anymore. Now we all know that that's going to be a problem.
Children played a major role, and all children were important in the Crusades.
Children were given rewards by American presidents for fighting in the Civil War.
Hitler gave a word for the union in the Second World War.
And if you go through this, there are just thousands of cases where children are used in warfare and nobody said, hey, children.
And also bear in mind that in the concept the teenager boy comes in of the 1930, so his years to be good enough.
We've changed our numbers here of what the definition of a child is wrong.
Understand that we're trying to figure out we've agreed now to do something about the children.
How are we doing? So this. This thing. And then we acted upon in theory and supposed to shame the people out of the country.
And there's been some shaming. People don't like their name used and said that you get children killed or something like that.
Of course, that was all U.N. peacekeeping and all other missions are involved in the country deemed the broke,
and they're now required when they go leave to work in the field to study,
report, back, monitor and assess the use of children by the government or by the rebel groups and as required by the reporting technique.
These are the monitoring, reviewing management techniques for task forces.
Of course, we also have to remember what I said about something like that. We should get some sort of a moment.
Canadian politics. But all of you, this has got to be looked at.
International Labour Organisation. Hundreds of NGO is asking for money to help them do something.
What's the what's to help people in poor countries?
The friends since nobody actually trusts the working group.
They're all sort of a group of friends in the United Nations, which makes it a job to watch the working group.
And if you get from my accent, it's chaired by Canadians and always has been chaired by Canadian diplomat.
You wouldn't know it, I told you.
And there's now a newer group and the French group, which is the one working group in Geneva with worldwide human rights issues.
But you getting some egalitarian arguments put, you know, let's get to the key part of the lecture.
The only way that the shame would work would be if it were sanctioned for that could.
I guess sanctions are allowed in the United Nations under Chapter seven.
Sanctions can push for embargo on countries. They can be put on individuals.
They can be put one end to this. And many of us trade multiple times and say they usually fail.
Well, when we talk about the sanctions regime, the number 16 sanctions committees,
these committees are enforced today and they're putting sanctions on individuals that they will join alQaeda or terrorists who move money around.
And this sanctions regime, though, can do other things besides targeting.
They can control your assets or prevent you from getting arrested.
They can stop you from getting a passport or travelling around the world.
And this is now done to some degree.
Thank you very much. This is done to some degree now around the world.
And watch it now, though, right now. And this is fun to look into the 1100 individuals or discrete entities named by the United Nations.
So what do you do with the United Nations? Consolidated sanctions with an even better name will pop up from every country.
Well, how bad it got is, and you can't count for any more. Now, most of you are very familiar with that.
The sanctions exist to try to control behaviour.
And in recent years, the United Nations have moved from a fairly strategy of all to embargoes.
And thank you picked out a country for that.
We're going to put an arms embargo on you and then it doesn't work. We're going to put an economic embargo on it.
It doesn't work. So we will have the literature is full of people like me writing, don't worry what I would argue.
And then I would work anyway. And there's a lot of crap. You can always get the weapons.
With for my money. And there's no problem. But in recent years, the U.N. has moved to what are called pardon of sanctions.
Any one individual or name is the inside of that state and say, this is action, you're very good.
You're no longer controlled. Now, these sanctions committee are probably where we should go in.
Probably difficult coming. But the United Nations doesn't want to do what needs to happen.
They don't want to say that the committee, the working group that sets up the list that says Ruther,
bad boy or bad girl, one world might be sanctioned. So they continue the whole statement.
We're going to the voters. You're a bad person. We're going to say no.
And then they do not follow through with the sanctions.
And the only being all depends on definition.
I won't spend a lot of time on that. Perhaps one person. Thank you.
In these 20 years. Of course it's the way to go.
Let me move the ICC and then we go back to the sanctions and then I'll stop.
Of course, all kinds of other courts, tribunals.
They all know both the tribunals of various countries, the domestic courts,
an international criminal court, just say, I work with the International Criminal Court. There's a lot of talking.
First of all, the problem with it is that both big countries, powerful countries, will join this kind of long Russia to form itself.
And the reasons why we could discuss the International Criminal Court for some time.
But for now, the point is that in order to get the international court to achieve something, I reduce the number of people involved in armed conflict.
It would have to punish several people. It hasn't managed to do.
It has. In all the years it's now been here before,
even before cases come to a conclusion and three ended up with people guilty and
none of the three only one were vanga could even be said maybe a little bit.
He's involved in the children. Over 300,000 people.
It's 55 different. And we only found. In 50 years, they only found one.
Of course, the United Nations doesn't want to assess the notion of criminality from the UN system down to the individual.
This is why sanctions might be the only place to go. You don't require criminality.
You don't require the lawyers. And opposition to lead requires the sanctions committees which already exist, or a new sanctions committee, let's say,
of the Working Group on Armed Conflict to have the ability to sanction people
and they could make their naming and shaming list and some background to it.
Of course, that's what the former French ambassador thought.
If I do that, you're going to make this committee work. You've got to get rid of the horrible slogan, not your statement.
You have to not deny them with their passport. Now, the skinny fingers of the rebels, they will bomb it here in the jungle of.
Congo. You don't care too much about your past. I agree that some problem here.
They don't want to travel anyway. But if you think of what's happened, for example,
with the president of the that he's managed to escape being brought before the International Criminal Court before you've read in the paper,
because none of the Arab countries will ever find one of the leaders, the International Criminal Court.
And so he can fly into other countries in Africa, have a good time flying back to his home country and never have Interpol.
Really? Please organisation pick him up and send him home.
Somehow or other, we've got to go further than the listing of all the action plans we're working to represent,
and the listing is working for a bit, but it's not strong enough to really make people frightened, to move aside, to effect behaviour.
Why do we have an. I don't mind. You told me I'm 40. Just tell me, how do we affect the behaviour of the people whose names are on the team list?
Who are part of the 55 situation where 300,000 people are employed against international law?
Against all the rules that I has been we that they are unless they're nervous about what might happen.
Let's end this. It's huge them, Jean-Marie.
All these love and you can come repaired the Oxford University Electronics the likes
of the next move on French foreign policy film next of the next week of the Congo.
Little like through the next week on the army in Thailand. What is missing in the is this is the totality of what makes the whole system work.
And how can we make it work better? You know.