The Lasting Effects

Disclaimer: I know the assignment was to analyze different news sources on a certain event or issue, but I searched a great deal and came up with nothing! All media that I found agrees in saying child soldiering needs to end. Therefore, I'd like to focus on the effects that the act of child soldiery has on the rest of the world (which I referred to in my first article).

The word 'soldier' should never follow the word 'child'. Yet, our world has decided differently. The fact that 300,000 children in our upcoming generation are being used as weapons is repulsive.

This blog is about the lasting long term effects of having child soldiers in the world; whom it effects and how.

Firstly, the most obvious is the many effects it has on the child him/herself. These children are abused and/or exposed to things that hurt them physically, mentally, and emotionally.

The physical effects of warfare (on any soldier) are apparent. We can see them. Children are often used in immensely dangerous missions because they are often thought of as 'expendable' or 'inferior' to the older soldiers. An example of one of these missions is this:

A former Burmese rebel child combatant recalls that at age sixteen his job was to run into no man's land and "grab weapons, watches, wallets and any ammunition from the dead soldiers, and bring it back to the bunkers... This was a difficult job as you could see the enemy and they could easily `pick you off' as you ran out and back again." [The Defense Monitor]

After warfare many children are left with missing limbs, head injuries or lost eyesight or hearing. The terrible scars that are visible on the outside pale in comparison to the deep psychological and mental damage that is left for them to hold for the rest of their lives.

At such a young age, children are very malleable. Their minds are in a critical developing process and very susceptible to outside influences. Therefore, being surrounded by (and participating in) violence and the many horrors of war has lifelong lasting impressions.

"Perhaps the most severe long-term consequences of children serving as soldiers may be on their moral development. When the fighting ends and children return to society, it is very difficult to place them in the more sedate surroundings of schools or families. Their moral system is dominated by fear of violence from whomever is superior in the hierarchy. Child soldiers find it difficult to disengage from the idea that violence is a legitimate means of achieving one's aims, and find the transition to a non-violent lifestyle difficult." [The Defense Monitor]

Moving on to the greater circle which is effected by child soldiers.. The effect is rippled from the area in which children are/have been used as weapons in warfare to outer regions, lapping the far corners of the world. Because of the deep psychological damage that is done to the children, it creates a mindset centered around violence that is easily distributed and manipulated.

So, although usually found in desolate areas away from extreme media attention and much of the public eye, child soldiering effects much of the world by leading a terrible example for other countries and spreading sickly ideals around the globe.

Works Cited

"The Defense Monitor." CDI - Center for Defense Information - Security Policy Research Organization. Web. 30 Mar. 2010. .">.

Insights on the Convention of the Rights of the Child

Twenty one years ago, UNICEF guaranteed human rights for every child on this planet. The Convention of the Rights of the Child, a "binding treaty of international law", declares that ever child has a right to health care, education and other social necessities. As well as protection from sexual abuse and other physical abuse, child labor, and, of course, being exploited for the use of armies (as child soldiers).

UNICEF recently did a study in 51 countries that showed that since the commencement of this treaty many of the countries have changed their laws to protect children from harm. For example, many areas have banned female genital mutilation and 'caning', and promoted education programs for girls (China View).

This treaty is the most widely accepted treaty in the world. Yet, in order for this treaty to be enforced in a country, it must be signed and ratified by it's government. In the entire world there are only two countries whom are yet to ratify the treaty: Somalia (who doesn't have an active government to ratify to bill) and the United States of America.

The difference between signing and ratifying:

SIGNING/SIGN: In human rights the first step in ratification of a treaty; to sign a Declaration, Convention or one of the Covenants constitutes a promise to adhere to the principles in the document and to honour its spirit.

RATIFICATION/RATIFY: Ratification, acceptance and approval all refer to the act undertaken on the international plane, whereby a State establishes its consent to be bound by a treaty. Most multilateral treaties expressly provide for States to express their consent to be bound by signature subject to ratification, acceptance or approval.

It is ironic that we haven't ratified this treaty because many of our "founding documents" -mainly our own Constitution- influenced the CRC in a huge way. Currently, there are many Americans advocating for the ratification of the CRC. They are pressing Barack Obama to sign it by November 10, 2010. Obama has stated that "it is embarrassing to find ourselves in the company of Somalia, a lawless land". During his campaigning, he vowed to review the treaty and "ensure that the US resumes its global leadership in human rights".

The United States government has openly breached the regulations of Article 38 (see below) in that they recruit children at the age of 17 into the armed forces.

"Article 38 (War and armed conflicts): Governments must do everything they can to protect and care for children affected by war. Children under 15 should not be forced or recruited to take part in a war or join the armed forces. The Convention’s Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict further develops this right, raising the age for direct participation in armed conflict to 18 and establishing a ban on compulsory recruitment for children under 18."

Within the media covering this topic, most was in agreement that the U.S. should sign the CNC treaty: BBC, UNICEF, Democracy in Action, Common Dreams, ChinaView (see works cited).

Although, I did find sources who believed that the U.S. should not sign the treaty. The Child and Family Protection Association thinks that the treaty's law would overpower our own states laws, giving too much power to the UN.

"It would have a negative impact on domestic law and practice in the United States... Our nation is the only nation that is required by its own constitution to enforce international treaties, when ratified by the U.S. Senate, upon all of its citizens. Other nations can and often do ignore provisions of U.N. Conventions and other treaties if they conflict with their current domestic laws. Article VI of our Constitution makes ratified treaties, including those called “conventions” by the U.N., “the supreme law of the land.” The CRC would be treated as superior to laws in every state regarding the parent-child relationship. This would include issues regarding education, health care, family discipline, the child’s role in family decision-making, and a host of other areas of life."

There is also an outcry against this treaty within some homeschooling communities in Europe and America. Principled Discovery, a blog of a mother who home schools her children, is opposed to the ratifying of the CRC. She writes,

"This–The UNCRC–is what is being used as a rationalization for home inspection by state officials in which they may speak to children in private without the parents breaking any laws or even being suspected of breaking any laws."

It was insightful to read these opposing views, it opened my eyes to the diversity of opinions on current topics. Although, much of this article did not have to do with child soldiers, it is still linked in the sense that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a step towards weakening the numbers of child soldiers around the globe.

Works Cited


Deen, Thalif. "US, Somalia Still Opt Out of Childrens Treaty." Common Dreams. 14 Nov. 2009. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/14-3>.

"Human Rights | BBC World Service." BBC. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. <http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/treaties_children.shtml>.

"The Campaign for U.S. Ratification of the CRC." Democracy in Action. Web. 10 Mar. 2010.

"The Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Use of Child Soldiers." MyMADRE. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. .

U.N. CRC Treaty Attacks Families." Child and Family Protection Association. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. .

"UNICEF - Convention on the Rights of the Child -." UNICEF. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. .

U.S. Advocate: Promoting Children's Rights Makes a Better World." China View. Web. 10 Mar. 2010. .

Hope in Nepal

A liberation of at least 3,000 child soldiers in Nepal was held between January and February of this year. These children fought during the "People's War" for the Maoist party (or Unified Communist Party of Nepal) in 1996 as they tried to overthrow the current Nepalese government and the Prime Minister Ser Bahadur Deuba. Bloody conflicts between the two parties continued throughout the decade and into the 21st century as the Maoists relied on a large amount of minors in battle. It's estimated that 12,000 of the soldiers of the party were under the age of 18. The UN along with the Nepalese government was in charge of the release of the children. Speaking for the UN was Karin Landgren, chief of the UN Mission in Nepal,

“You who are now leaving the cantonments are no longer in the Maoist army chain of command. The period of your life dedicated to armed struggle is now in the past. You have a role in helping make Nepal a country that is just, equitable, democratic and peaceful.”

With their discharge they are given a small amount of money and rehabilitation assistance including formal schooling, vocational training, education as heath workers, and help with starting small businesses.

The Himalayan Times, a newspaper stationed in Nepal, covers this story with a great amount of stress on the future of these children with very little to no glances back to the history of these tragedy. It is mainly focused on what is being done to help these children and what's planned to be done to help these children, yet nothing is mentioned (in any amount of detail) about what has been done to these children within the borders of their country.

Al Jazeera, a newspaper stationed in the Middle East, relays the story with a great amount of symbolism with a 'fairy tale ending' feel about it. "Around 250 young men and women are to swap their blue People's Liberation Army uniforms for civilian clothes on Thursday to begin their jouney home..." writes the journalist(s) at Al Jazeera. I thought it was interesting and very relevant that they included quotes from the People's Liberation Army spokesman, Chandra Prasad Khanal:

"For us this is a sad moment because we are sending away our fellow fighters in the decade-long people's war. But we are taking this step in order to bring the peace process to a logical conclusion."

In contrast to it's opening paragraphs, Al Jazeera did mention a shadowed part of the situation, a part that neither of the other news sources included. It was the fact that some of these child soldiers expressed regret when leaving the camp. Creating a sense that it might not be a "happily ever after" after all.

Also reporting on the release of the Maoist child soldiers was, of course, the UN News Centre. They started the article right off with the history of the children in the war and continued with the focus on the lives of the children. Quoting Gillian Mellsop, Country Representative for the UN Children's Fund,

“The release of these young people today is not only symbolic for the country but a milestone for these young men and women who spent their formative years inside a military structure losing out on critical skills vital for adulthood.”

It was clear that the UN had a specific agenda, and wanted to shed light on their good deed, not that they shouldn't. Yet, it was pure of all setbacks.

There are many different ways to tell the same story. Shifting the point of view and focus can change the entire tone of the report, creating a whole new feel when reading it. These are examples of this manipulation.


Sources:

Bhattarai, Kamal D. "Signature seal to release Maoist child soldiers." The Himalayan Times. 16 Dec. 2009. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.

"Maoism." Wikipedia. Web. 1 Mar. 2010.

"Nepal child soldiers leave UN camps." English.aljazeera.net. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.

"Nepal: UN hails release of all child soldiers by Maoists." UN News Centre. UN News Service, 8 Feb. 2010. Web. 28 Feb. 2010.

Introduction

There are children as young as 7 fighting in either the bloody front lines or in "combat support" providing spy information, food or ammunition for non-government armies and rebel causes. These children are coerced and exploited as soldiers, being robbed of any hope of a childhood. Although, mostly far away from us in Africa and Asia, this human rights abomination effects us in ways that are much too clear for us to turn a blind eye. I will be blogging about the current and historical effects of the exploitation of children and what's being done to change the fate of these young ones.

It is estimated that there are 300,000 child soldiers around the world currently participating in combat. And over 50 countries recruit soldiers under the age of 18. There are many different ways that children get involved. Their parents may have offered them up for service, they may be searching for a reliable source of food and clothing, trying to protect themselves and their family, and too often they are manipulated by force or through guilt trips or other mind games into being a violent tool of war. Girls are targeted as well, in case studies it was found that girls made up a third of the child soldiers in El Salvador, Ethiopia, and Uganda.

These children are exposed to countless atrocities including rape and other physical abuse. As well as witnessing and participating in all of the horrors of war including mass executions, bombings, torture, and destruction of houses, properties and lives. The physical effects on these children are astronomic, deaths and injuries are caused every day in battle. Not to mention the intense psychological damage that is wrought during every battle and with every gunshot or slash of a machete. These children are scarred forever by these horrors and will never part with the twisted and paranoid mindset that comes with stepping into battle.

Promising yet slow, efforts are being put forth to turn the futures of the children around, and to
finally give them a chance at freedom. The effects of this could be gargantuan, touching even us on the other side
of the world. To shape the next generation, which, in turn, will shape the whole of the people of the
world: for better -if something is done- or for worse.

Sources:

"Child Soldiers" Child Soldiers: Vital Statistics. UN.org. Pages 1-8. Viewed 2-22-10. <www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/briefing/soldiers/soldiers.pdf>

"Unified Communist Party of Nepal" Wikipedia. Viewed 2-22-10. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Nepal_(Maoist)>

Sarah Crowe and Marty Logan. "Last Group of Maoist child soldiers discharged in Nepal" Unite For Children. Viewed 2-22-10. <http://www.unicef.org/infobycountry/nepal_52791.html>

"Nepal Child Soldiers Leave UN Camps" Aljazeera.net. Updated 1-7-10. Viewed 2-22-10. <http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2010/01/20101762112676535.html>