The Images of a Child Soldier as an Angry African Boy Carrying Guns and Other Weapons of War - Research Paper Example

 Abstract Historically, children have been widely exploited in armed political conflicts as soldiers although such practices were evidently in opposition to cultural morals. The term and use of child soldiers have evolved over time in various cultures. Child soldiers in the ancient Western world and the Middle East are dissimilar in functions from those of child soldiers in contemporary societies. The use of these children as soldiers is encouraged by various factors; local commanders find it easier to enlist these children in the armed forces for the reason that they are easily brainwashed and manipulated, expedient and inexpensive. Several international organizations have emerged since the 1970s to reduce the involvement of children in armed political conflicts. The objective of this paper is to analyze and discuss the historical development of the term and use of child soldiers in various societies, as well as its contemporary implications to the wellbeing of the global community. Introduction The problem of children’s involvement in armed political conflict has disturbed the world during the recent decades. The media frequently show images of a child soldier as an angry African boy carrying guns and other weapons of war. This is the usual portrayal of a child soldier in television screens and in newspapers. Less often but just as alarmingly, accounts of young girls forced to serve as mercenaries float up in the media. An unparalleled number of youngsters have been pressured into active participation in combat (Cairns 1996). Numerous children are forced to participate in warfare; others are compelled into it by extreme poverty and predicaments in their communities; some could be attracted by assurances of excitement or prestige. Young children are trained to become ruthless mercenaries, committing the most unspeakable cruelties with visible coldness or even satisfaction (Goodwin-Gill & Cohn 1994). Children’s participation in armed political conflict has a long history. In the past, children have been the vanguards of political combat in numerous societies, even if it has become cruel. However, media today normally represent a child soldier as an African youth. This is due to the fact that the civil wars in Africa during the past two decades used a sizable number of child combatants. The primary explanation for this is that Africa is not just the most poor continent in the world but it is also world’s youngest. A great portion of the population of Africa is below 18-years of age (Kuper 1997). In addition, a large number of children who were seized into the band of soldiers are readily trained in guerilla warfare. Nonetheless, studies also found out that numerous child soldiers, lacking domestic nourishment, became fearless and dedicated combatants (web 1). The objective of this study is to trace the historical development of the emergence and enlistment of child soldiers for combat in various societies. Evolution of the Term and Use of Child Soldiers The term ‘child soldier’ at present normally connotes young fighters in Africa. But in truth, the use of child soldiers has been the practice for centuries in various societies and a number of forms are even exercised at present in developed countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States. Some time ago, obvious exploitation of children has not always been associated with Africa (Singer 2001). Since the beginnings of human history, the brutish character of survival guaranteed that the military would emerged as the most valuable and powerful industry. There was rarely a difficulty in enlisting or abducting children into the military forces. The remarkable need to conscript armed forces promptly showed the favorability of child soldiers. With grown-up males habitually gone out of the country, children were relied upon to defend the territory and families. The weaker and smaller youngsters who were incapable of handling heavy weapons were employed as runners and spies (Wessells 2006). The famous Spartans of ancient Greece developed a rigid militaristic civilization, with very young boys being removed from their home and raised in military schooling. The Spartans raised fighters as a means to guarantee their superiority against Greek enemies. Young fighters were the means to continued existence for a small city-state. They were depended on to reinforce the size of armed forces, and even in the contemporary period small empires and countries employ child soldiers for the same rationale (Wessells 2006). Likewise, the Ottoman Turks in the 1300s abducted young Christian boys and basically conditioned them into being faithful to the monarch of the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan. Rigidly trained, these Christian boys became the best military division in the Middle East, and possibly Europe. These child soldiers were referred to as Janissaries. Fascinatingly, Islam banned the enlistment of Muslim boys below 15-years of age in combat, but enforced no such securities for Jews or Christians (Kuper 2005). On the other hand, in the Americas and Europe children were used largely in support functions. The drummer boy became a symbolic icon in the military history of America, and the British Navy ordinarily enlisted small boys as helpers in their flotillas. It was not until the last century, when the terrors of armed conflict were more expansively dispersed that one felt there was a far and wide need to safeguard children in combat. A movement focused on safeguarding the children became popular under the revolutionary attempts of an English philanthropist, Eglantyne Jebb, and subsequently the international society progressively acted to eliminate the use of youngsters as fighters (Kuper 2005). Warfare consistently has been a virtually special adult field. In the past, there were some cases where boys did serve as mercenaries, although not equivalent to active combatants. Pages facilitated support and sustain the soldiers of ancient Europe, whereas drummer boys were a necessary entity of any army in the 18th century in the USA. Yet in each instance they served secondary support functions and were not regarded as actual fighters. They neither contended with death nor were regarded valid targets. However, American troops have confronted definite cases of children skirmishing in the last breaths of conquered territories, most especially the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) trainees at the 1864 Battle of New Market and the fortifying of a Nazi Party’s paramilitary organization, the Hitler-Jugend, the time Allied armies occupied Nazi Germany in 1945 (Singer 2001, 40). Several children also battled along with several Cold-War insurgent factions, as well as the Viet Cong. However, each of these cases was qualitatively distinct from a common application; they were separated in ‘time, geographic space, and scope’ (Singer 2001, 40) and children were not at all an important, critical entity of the forces involved (Monforte 2007, 169). The character of armed political conflict, however, has evolved dramatically in the recent decades. As the last century came to an end, the contribution of children in warfare had transformed in several corners of the world from secondary to primary (Boyden & De Berry 2004). The war in Sierra Leone exposes the scope of this transformation. The total number of child soldiers for all parties there is roughly 20,000, making them the mainstream fighters; approximately 80 percent of the insurgent Revolutionary United Front (RUF) group is seven - fourteen-years of age (Singer 2001, 41). As the 21st century progresses, child soldiers increasingly become part of the combat zones of every continent except for Antarctica and Australia; they have developed into vital components of both terrorist and organized military divisions, yet remain brutal, political groups, such as terrorist organizations. They fulfill an array of functions: porters, sentries, sappers, spies, raiders, and infantry shock troops. In other words, the involvement of children in armed political conflict is international in scope and enormous in number, which is a considerably greater trend than indicated by the negligible attention given to it (Kuper 2005). In the 1990s, child soldiers in the Americas served in combat in Peru, Paraguay, Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Ecuador. The most sizable existing population is in Colombia. They are given the title ‘little bells’ by the armed forced in Colombia, which employs them as disposable guards and ‘little bees’ by the insurrectionists, since they ‘sting’ their adversaries before they recognize that they are being attacked (Singer 2001, 41) In Eurasia, child soldiers have been existent in Nagorno-Karabakh, Daghestan, Chechnya, and Kosovo. The largest user of child fighters in Europe is the Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). Since 1994, it began enlisting children methodically and even built divisions of children. In 1998, it was revealed that the PKK had ‘3,000 children within its ranks’, seven-year olds being the youngest (Singer 2001, 41). Africa is generally regarded to be the core of the occurrence. Armed organizations making use of child fighters are existent in virtually every one of its combats. Roughly 16,000 child soldiers battled in the Liberian hostility. A survey conducted by the United Nations (UN) in 1995 disclosed that 36 percent of the total population of children in Angola had functioned as or escorted combatants in warfare. Of specific note is Uganda’s Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), distinguished, or rather well-known, for being composed of almost entirely of child fighters. Throughout its ten-year struggle with the regime, it has kidnapped over 12,000 youngsters to train as combatants. The LRA is also infamous for having the youngest armed soldier, at five-years of age (Singer 2001, 41). In Asia and the Middle East, there has been an increase in armed organizations and a simultaneous increase in the population of child soldiers. Apprentices from religious schools in Pakistan composed the mass of Taliban forces in their first occupation (Wessells 2006). Youngsters are at the forefront of combat in Kashmir, Cambodia, Laos, Philippines, Lebanon and Palestine. Myanmar has a massive number of child fighters. The UN approximates that on top of the 300,000 presently active child soldiers more than 50 states vigorously enlist children into their armed forces, frequently in breach of international and local laws (Monforte 2007). Another contemporary issue of the child soldier trend is that it disregards gender restrictions. In the isolated cases some time ago when children were utilized on the combat zone, they were commonly boys. At present, while most of the child fighters are male, more or less 30 percent of the armed organizations in the world that enlist child soldiers take in girls. The most notable possibly is the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelaam (LTTE), battling in Sri Lanka ever since the 1980s. The organization methodically enlists children and has even founded the LTTE Bakuts or ‘Baby Brigade’, composed of soldiers who are 16-years of age and younger. Approximately half of the troops of LTTE are girls and women. They are intentionally recruited for suicide bomber assignments for the reason that they may not go through a rigorous body search at checkpoints (Singer 2001, 41). Generally, children’s involvement in armed conflicts is a global problem that takes place more methodically than formerly suggested. It is significant to emphasize that there are not merely youngsters on the borderline of maturity, but in numerous instances involve those regarded infantile by any cultural norm. Moreover, while the commonly established overall world data of 300,000 child fighters could be a fairly small fraction of the total number of armed recruits globally, it makes up a sizable percentage of actual forces active in continuing armed conflicts. Approximately ten percent of the total existing soldiers in the world are children (Kuper 2005). There are several explanations for the growing use of children as fighters. In several societies, children are already viewed as manual workers; hence it is not too much to anticipate their participation in the military if they are unable to lend a hand on farm labor due to displacement or environmental problems. Children are normally subservient and easily conditioned, and therefore an appealing supply of labor (Bruce 2001). Furthermore, as one rebel commander in the Democratic Republic of Congo has mentioned: “(children) make good fighters because they’re young and want to show off. They think it’s all a game, so they’re fearless”, therefore can frequently be abused for the riskiest of missions (web 2). Also, spoiled environment and damaged role identities contribute to the escalating exploitation of children as soldiers. Environmental damages trigger the transformation of children from farm work to armed work. The Graça Machel/UN report in 1996 states that “one of the most basic reasons that children join armed groups is economic. Hunger and poverty… drive parents to offer their children for service. In some cases, armies pay a minor soldier’s wages directly to the family” (Winter 1998, 423). Since children are viewed as precious assets to the food supply of the family, a farmer does not indifferently enlist his child to the armed forces. Only calamitous situations compel children into military labor. Lone children are mainly lured to military divisions when they are starving. In the statement of President Museveni of Uganda, “They just come and stay in the camps because we have no orphanages. Then they can eat” (Winter 1998, 423). But starvation is not the lone ecological basis of child soldiering. When local identity is disrupted through environmental damage, role identities are destroyed and children look for new roles, particularly when dislocated or alone. Numerous children look for the protection and belonging mislaid in families and communities in armed forces divisions (Monforte 2007). Teenagers are prone to integrate ideological values into their fighter roles too. Child combatants are prone to believe that violence is the paramount means of functioning in a hostile world, rendering reintegration into mainstream roles problematic. Because of this, promptly reintegrating children to their previous environments and communities is essential. Sadly, a massive barrier to continuation of prewar functions is the enduring dreadfulness of landmines, which make ordinary existence hazardous for years to come (Bruce 2001). Child Soldiering: A Global Problem There are armed political conflicts brewing in various countries, and adults are not the only people suffering and dying, but also children. Children are fighting, slaughtering and dying. Sadly, these children may not even be aware of or understand the cause they are fighting for. It is distressing that at present, in the new millennium, youngsters are still being exploited in such a way. It is outrageous that people do nothing and watch as these child soldiers die for them. This phenomenon is then a grave global problem and this should end. As reported by the U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, the population of children below 18-years of age who are now engaged in armed conflicts all over the world is more than hundreds of thousands, and more could be enlisted to engage in combat at any moment. An approximated two million children have been murdered in warfare in the recent decade alone, and much more have been critically injured or mutilated (Kuper 2005). Several children join the military, most of them from impoverished communities with lives of adversities. For some, the military could give them a better life or a life free of hunger. They can eat regularly or break away from a repressive home environment. Yet children in the military are commonly oppressed and harassed there, and the guarantee of minimal food and small cash is usually not worth the cost: physical deformity or disability, permanent trauma, or death (Wessells 2006). Children are also compelled to join the military for other motives, the most widespread being that it is basically a ritual within their culture. They could feel overpoweringly about a specific cause and perceive this as a chance to advocate it, or they could be self-doubting and sense the desire to have mastery of a weapon. Being in the armed forces could help lift a child’s self-esteem, if not abused or summoned into warfare. At times it is not the decision of the child at all. Sometimes parents suggest their children for enlistment into the military forces, and children have also been kidnapped, or forcibly enlisted into the armed forces (Skinner 1999). Child soldiers are in reality favored by a number of military leaders because they are easier to handle and brainwash than adults. Children usually do not defy or question orders. Thus, in the case of youths, the superior officer is evidently the authority behind the guns, while grown-up fighters are more prone to challenge or refuse to comply with commands, thereby backbiting from the commander’s authority. Children are as well more apt to perform suicide tasks than are adults. The disadvantage to child fighters on a military point of view is that they are normally physically and mentally weaker and more fragile than adults. They are more likely to be incapable of enduring backbreaking assignments. Children are not as numbed to atrocities; being less ruthless, they could be powerless to endure when introduced to the terrors of warfare. Traumatic missions or situations weaken a child’s strength, and maltreatment from other soldiers and officers, which frequently occurs, can harshly devastate a child or adolescent (web 3). Child fighters, mostly girls but sometimes boys as well, are habitually sexually abused. Whether this is performed to divert adult combatants from the terrors of armed conflict, to simply entertain themselves, or both, this kind of abuse can traumatize children permanently. A Honduran girl who had joined the military said (web 1): “At the age of thirteen, I joined the student movement. I had a dream to contribute to make things change, so that children would not be hungry… Later I joined the armed struggle. I had all the inexperience and the fears of a little girl. I found out that girls were obliged to have sexual relations “to alleviate the sadness of the combatants.” And who alleviated our sadness after going with someone we hardly knew? At my young age I experienced abortion. It was not my decision. There is a great pain in my being when I recall all these things… In spite of my commitment, they abused me; they trampled my human dignity. And above all they did not understand that I was a child and that I had rights”. However, not all child fighters are abused, oppressed or harassed; some are sheltered, protected and supported. Yet regardless how much a youngster in the military is protected, all the dread and pain of armed conflict cannot be concealed. When a military confrontation is going on, superior officers will discharge children into combat sooner or later. It is certain that they will see, or worse, endure cruelties that a good number of other kids can merely have nightmares about (web 1). Several individuals might argue that the end will always justify the means. If the ideology child soldiers are fighting for is justifiable, possibly it will spare lives in due course. It is reasonable that having more combatants on one side in a particular warfare may be the difference between emerging victorious and conquered in a battle, but it is unlikely. It is much more possible that multitudes of children will be killed in an armed conflict that makes no important difference at all. Whichever the instance, permitting quite numerous children to be killed is a means that can never be defended by a tremendously disputable end, because even the most righteous end, the use of children as soldiers is morally wrong and unprincipled (Hooker 2003). There are other means to defend an ideology than to use a weapon and slaughter enemies; fighting is not essentially the optimal resolution. In a perfect world, war and violence are nonexistent. And even though this is not and by no means will be a perfect world, individuals can persevere toward this aspiration by finding peaceful means to advocate their ideologies. Possibly acknowledging that the exploitation of child soldiers can never be validated will be an initial stride toward the recognition that nobody should be a combatant. Still, in a reality wherein armed conflicts are perceived as justifiable, can adults appropriately prohibit children to join them? Possibly the most significant explanation for doing so is that youngsters can possess no factual understanding of what they are approving to. When they enlist, hardly any children are conscious of what joining an army truly requires. By the time they become aware of the reality, abandonment is the sole means of escape. Child combatants who manage to survive commonly have a hard time reintegrating to mainstream society. They may be physically disfigured or disabled, or emotionally wounded, which then could strain their assimilation within a social community. Research reveals that a considerable number of ex-child soldiers turn out to be victims of sexual slavery; adolescents usually return home only to find out that their families are gone or have disbanded. And even when the family is still living and together, children are usually incapable of bridging the gap brought about by many years of detachment and dissimilar lifestyles (Skinner 1999). There are several international and local attempts to ban the exploitation of child soldiers. The U.S. Campaign to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers supports a global prohibition on conscription of teenagers below the age of eighteen for military services. Its objectives are: 1. U.S. approval of the new-fangled child soldiers set of rules; 2. eradication of U.S. military support that enables the exploitation of child soldiers by other regimes or armed political organizations; 3. enhanced U.S. nongovernmental and governmental advocacy for agendas to stop child enlistment and to provide for the reintegration, rehabilitation and demobilization of child soldiers; and 4. lifting the U.S. recruitment age to eighteen. Organizations in other countries that are against the use of children as soldiers have comparable objectives, adapted to the situations of their own societies (web 1). Conclusion As long as armed conflicts have been instigated, children have been sufferers and partakers. They have been among the inhabitants whose fraction of overall victims increased throughout the last century. Merely a percentage of those child fatalities were fighters, but the problem of child soldiers had turn out to be a global concern by the end of the twentieth century. A sad reality behind the use of children as soldiers is that they can easily be manipulated hence making them good soldiers. Scholars have revealed that small children, specifically, believe combat and aggression as solutions to armed conflict more effortlessly than older children or adults. Furthermore, they can effortlessly handle sophisticated weapons that are of light weight; they are effortlessly brainwashed and natural participants, eager to assume risks; and they can normally gain access to enemy territories because majority of adult combatants are hesitant to kill children. The ‘pull’ consequences are commonly balanced by an evenly powerful ‘push’. The crippling poverty in several Third World countries and war-prone areas compel children to labor in farms or shops. A number of them are orphans without family to sustain or nurture them; others are expatriates with no hope of secure job. They join revolutionary forces or the government because they believe their service is a means to have better lives. These children think that joining the military is not essentially an issue of deserting childhood, but of trading various forms of untimely adulthood. Bibliography Books: 1. Boyden, Jo & J. De Berry. Children and Youth on the Front Line: Ethnography, Armed Conflict, and Displacement. New York: Berghahn Books, 2004. 2. Brett, R. & M. Mccallin. Children: the invisible soldiers. Stockholm: Swedish Save the Children, 1996. 3. Goodwin-Gill, G. & I. Cohn. Child Soldiers: the role of children in armed conflicts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. 4. Hooker, Forrestine. Child of the Fighting Tenth: On the Frontier with the Buffalo Soliders. Ed. Steve Wilson. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 5. Wessells, Michael. Child Soldiers: From Violence to Protection. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006. 6. Kuper, Jenny. International Law Concerning Child Civilians in Armed Conflict. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. 7. Military Training and Children in Armed Conflict: Law, Policy and Practice. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2005. ? Peters, Krijn. "'Why We Fight": Voices of Youth Combatants in Sierra Leone." Africa (1998): 183+. Journal Articles: 1. Cairns, E. Children and Political Violence. Oxford: Blackwell, 1996. 2. Goodwin-Gill, G. & I. Cohn. Child Soldiers: the role of children in armed conflicts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. 3. Bruce, Beverlee. "Toward Mediating the Impact of Forced Migration and Displacement among Children Affected by Armed Conflict." Journal of International Affairs (2001): 35+. 4. Littlewood, R. "Military Rape." Anthropology Today (1997). 5. Monforte, Tanya M. "Razing Child Soldiers." Alif: Journal of Comparative Poetics (2007): 169+. 6. Singer, P.W. "Children at War." Parameters (2001): 40+. 7. Skinner, Elliott P. "Child Soldiers in Africa: A Disaster for Future Families." International Journal on World Peace (1999): 7. 8. Winter, Deborah. "War is Not Healthy for Children and Other Living Things." Peace and Conflict (1998): 415. Webs: 1. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Child+soldiers.-a089431084 2. http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/chilsold.htm 3. http://www.thefreelibrary.com/War,+children,+and+education.(International%2FIntercultural)-a0157032412 Read More