On National Children's Day on Tuesday, Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba urged Nepalis from all walks of life to "work together towards the betterment and future of our children". Did anyone link this sentiment to the prospective talks between the government and the Maoists? The link needs to be made.

When concerted dialogue takes place between government and Maoist representatives, will negotiators on both sides dare to regard the welfare of Nepali children as a practical objective of talks? To some, this might appear to be a bizarre question, but there is a strong case to be made that the well-being of children should be high on the agenda.

If the welfare and treatment of children is a key test of a society's commitment to human and social development, then the manner in which government and Maoist negotiators treat the rights and well-being of children could be an important indicator of their credibility. Is it not in the interests of both parties in the dialogue to agree to comply with the highest standards possible when the protection of children's rights is in question?

Too often, children are invisible to political leaders and decision-makers. But in the context of the hoped-for talks, the needs and rights of children can form a common basis for understanding and agreement between the two sides. Early and joint commitment of both parties to the welfare of children could constitute an important first step on the road to peace. What does this mean in practical terms?
1. At its most fundamental, it would be desirable for each side to make a basic commitment to the protection of children (defined by the Convention on the Rights of the Child as people below the age of 18 years)-that under no circumstances will children be in any way targetted, exploited, recruited as combatants, or used as messengers or sentries, for example.
2. Places where children congregate-schools especially-should be declared safe zones which no soldier or combatant will enter or occupy for any purpose, and which should not be used as recruitment centres for child combatants.
If there is one shared hope for Nepal's future, it is that all children should be able to get a good quality education in a safe learning environment. As it is, too few Nepali children have this opportunity. Teacher training needs a radical restructuring and the appointment of teachers needs to be depoliticised. Solidarity around a concerted national effort to improve the quality of basic education and to help all children gain access to good schooling would be proof that both sides are committed to investing in the future, and not mortgaging it to their own political ends.
3. It is important to recognise the "humanitarian imperative" of guaranteeing the right to humanitarian assistance of any civilians-children among them-trapped in any conflict zone.
Declaration of a common commitment to the nation's children would send a clear and simple message that has not so far been heard-that whatever happens in Nepal, the involvement of children in conflict, whether as actors or as victims, is not acceptable.
The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN General Assembly in May 2000, requires governments to ensure that children under 18 years are not compulsorily recruited into their armed forces and that members of the armed forces under the age of 18 do not take a direct part in hostilities. It also states that armed groups "that are distinct from the armed forces of a State should not, under any circumstances, recruit or use in hostilities persons under the age of 18 years".
In Nepal, the government has stated that while young Nepalis can enlist from the age of 15 years to follow military training, nobody under 18 years of age can be recruited into the army. However, Amnesty International and others have reported "a rising tide of recruitment of children by the CPN (Maoist)". The latter's own reports have cited the "substantial contribution" of children to the "peoples' war". What could encourage the Maoists to review this practice?
Today, in the northeast of Sri Lanka, UNICEF is negotiating with the Tamil Tigers to stop using schools as centres for recruitment of child combatants. At the same time, the UN agency is requesting government forces to move out of schools occupied as military camps, and to move military guard-posts to at least 500 m distance from school compounds. In Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo, "corridors of peace" or "days of tranquillity" are negotiated to allow child vaccinations to take place, or to ensure the transhipment of humanitarian supplies to children and families in need. Behind such initiatives is a 20-year-old concept, that of "children as a zone of peace".

The manner in which groups opposing each other treat children needs to be developed as an important indicator of their credibility. The protection of children and their delineation as "zones of peace" must surely be an essential element of the platform of any government or opposition group that claims moral authority, or of any group which aspires to legitimate political leadership. These are not new ideas, but they are ideas that need to be constantly reaffirmed.

It is entirely feasible that the needs and rights of children can form a common basis for understanding and agreement between the government and the Maoists as and when talks take place. There is also a logic to such an approach: to focus on the protection of children is to invest in our own future.