Our myths are full of young heroes

Our myths are full of young heroes yet our media calls them tragic victims. What is the truth about child soldiers?

The idea of child soldiers is itself young. International law organisations didn’t take up the issue until the close of the 20th century and, even then, they did so in a cautious and patchwork manner. The 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child asks governments to take ‘all feasible measures’ to keep children under 15 from direct combat. In 2000, the UN General Assembly committed to raising the age to 18, and in 2002 the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict was made good – sort of. Non-state guerrilla groups are banned from recruiting anyone under 18, while states are allowed to enlist volunteers over 15. The child soldier as a criminal aberration, a violation of even the rules of war, is more or less a 21st-century idea.

But what it lacks in history, the child soldier makes up for with dramatic pathos. Whether it’s an aid organisation making a fundraising pitch or a news anchor plucking heartstrings, nothing conveys the depravity of far-off conflict quite like the image of a nine-year-old smoking a cigarette and toting an AK-47. The memoir A Long Way Gone (2007) by the former child soldier Ishmael Beah tells the now-familiar story of forcible recruitment at 12, drugs, coercion and four years of violence, before a rescue by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). Though a lot of the facts are now disputed, Beah’s stories of Sierra Leone helped to establish the child soldier as an archetype of misfortune.

Over the past 20 years, non-governmental organisations of varying size have sprung up to remove minors from combat around the world. In 1998, eight major human‑rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, teamed up to form the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers; four years later they established 12 February as ‘Red Hand Day’ to raise awareness and stop the use of child soldiers. Child‑soldier activism reached a popular crescendo with the viral video KONY 2012 from the missionary group Invisible Children, made to promote their campaign to arrest Joseph Kony, the head of the Ugandan rebel Lord’s Resistance Army.

The child soldier that haunts the Western imagination is kidnapped, brainwashed, drugged, and forced to commit atrocities until you, the Western donor, do something to stop the tragedy.

War, as it is said, is hell, and no war has ever exempted children, either as victims or combatants. Our recent attention to the practice of child soldiering is less about changes in the nature of modern combat and more to do with the globalising ideal of childhood as a sheltered period of development. As Helen Brocklehurst, a lecturer in international relations at Swansea University in Wales, writes in her essay ‘Childhood in Conflict: Can the Real Child Soldier Please Stand Up?’ (2009), the emergence of the phrase ‘child soldier’ ‘marks the point at which a society’s conception of childhood became incommensurable when harnessed to its concept of warfare’. As it so happened, we reached this point right around the time capitalism defeated communism and the end-of-history theorists gleefully declared there were no wars left to fight. What remains is pacification, to clean up the crazy or evil groups who decline to get with the program.

In this way, the child soldier comes to stand for all illegitimate armed groups, whose motives are always irrational – as are those of the child soldier. Their fighting is a misguided response to trauma, or the result of cult-style programming, or is forced by the threat of violence from a monomaniacal strongman. Child soldiers are victims as well as perpetrators, just like all non‑state combatants are victims of their own foolish intransigence. In the age of liberal democracy and non-violent resistance, all insurgency is as unnatural as an adolescent lieutenant. And since I can find no historical record of a popular uprising that did not include teenagers (including America’s own), any people’s revolution is a de facto violation of international law. Once a militia anywhere in the world is accused of using child soldiers, the West is self-authorised to intervene and restore order.Kony 2012 was a good internet joke, but it also led directly to congressmen in both houses and parties calling for an increased US presence in central Africa.

The use of children in combat may be historically uncommon, but it wasn’t illegal or surprising that adolescents went to war. We know this in part because we’ve kept past ‘child soldiers’ alive in history and legend. In his book Reimagining Child Soldiers in International Law and Policy (2012), Mark A Drumbl cites just a few examples: Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and the author of On War (1832), joined the Prussian army at 12; Alexander the Great became regent and quelled a Thracian rebellion at 16; and Joan of Arc was also a teenager when she petitioned the king for permission to travel with the army to Orleans in 1429. David was even more precocious when he slew Goliath and ascended to the throne. And there were teens at the Boston Tea Party in 1773, while the 17-year-old Samuel Maverick was one of five colonists killed at the Boston Massacre in 1770. Drumbl also includes the civil rights activist Claudette Colvin, who at the age of 15, nine months before Rosa Parks, refused to give up her bus seat. The list goes on, and for all the names we know, there are many more lost to time.

In these stories, the children’s youth wasn’t a sign that their cause was corrupt or misguided. On the contrary, inspired children were a sign of favour from God – or history. The presence of child soldiers today immediately depoliticises the conflict and renders it a question of criminality, but child soldiers in old war stories raise the question of the future, which is to say now. History’s winners can take pleasure in past battles, they can place themselves in the shoes of precocious soldier-children because they know how the story ends: liberal capitalist democracy, the nation-state system, the UN. Now that we’ve grown out of child soldiering, we can look back on it fondly, as a testament to the foresight and bravery of our ancestors. Whatever they did, after all, got us here.

As long as they’re separated from contemporary geopolitics, child-soldier narratives are considered perfectly appropriate for US kids. Think about the boy wizard Harry Potter: a war orphan seized from his surviving relatives at age 10, Harry is brought to a secluded academy run by former militants, told he is destined for glory, and taught to fight. When the warlord who killed his parents returns to make a power play, the teenage Harry raises and trains an armed cadre of his fellow high-schoolers to fight internal and external enemies. One of these child soldiers is killed in an ensuing battle. Post-war, Harry and his best friend Ron, both still teenagers, join the new government’s military police unit. ‘They are now the experts,’ the novels’ author JK Rowling told reporters in 2007, expanding on the epilogue of her last book in the series. ‘It doesn't matter how old they are or what else they’ve done.’ The International Criminal Court might beg to differ, but they’re not in the habit of prosecuting winners.

In fictional ‘just war’ scenarios, such as the rise of Voldemort or a communist invasion, Americans are far less conflicted about whether or not children can choose to be guerrillas. Though US territory hasn’t been occupied by a foreign power since the War of 1812, that doesn’t stop us from imagining what we would do if it happened. In the movieRed Dawn (1984), the Soviet Union and its Cuban allies invade and quickly conquer the US. (In the 2012 remake, the invader is North Korea.) The protagonists are a scrappy group of Colorado high-schoolers who take to the hills and mount an offensive against the Ruskies. The Wolverines (named after their school mascot) train and fight and die, but there’s no real question as to whether they should surrender or if they’re too young to take on their responsibilities. At the end of the original movie, a war memorial stands for the Wolverines: ‘In the early days of World War III, guerrillas – mostly children – placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so that this nation shall not perish from the earth.’

When it comes to the homeland, no international body can tell our teens to stand down.

Race is one of the reasons it’s easier for Western media consumers to imagine teenagers as heroes in Colorado or magical Scotland than in Sri Lanka or Colombia. If we’re exposed only to frozen images of these children as objects of sympathy – soft-eyed, mute, sad – it’s harder to put ourselves in their position and imagine what their motivations might be as individuals.

The Harry Potter series underestimates the lifelong trauma these children would experience, never mind whether they should be immediately taking jobs as civil servants. International standards would call for them to be demobilised and reintegrated into the civilian population. But at least in Harry Potter or, for that matter, The Hunger Games novels by Suzanne Collins, children get to experience a range of emotions, to make choices and have intentions. Meanwhile, the aid world’s portrayal of pre-demobilisation child soldiers presents them as one-dimensional, not culpable for their actions because of coercion or brainwashing. This flat image serves the interests of aid organisations and the UN General Assembly, but it requires us to ignore the voices of the children themselves.

For example, in 2009, UNICEF and Sri Lanka teamed up for a media campaign called ‘Bring Back the Child’ which aimed to discourage underage recruitment, specifically by the rebel group Liberation Tigers of

Результаты (русский) 1:

Наши мифы полны молодых героев еще наши СМИ называет их трагических жертв. Что такое правда о солдат?Идея детей-солдат является самой молодой. Международного права Организации не рассматривать данный вопрос до конца XX века, и даже тогда, они сделали это в духе осторожного и пэчворк. Конвенция Организации Объединенных Наций 1989 года о правах ребенка просит правительства принимать 'все осуществимые меры' держать детей моложе 15 лет от прямого боя. В 2000 году Генеральная Ассамблея ООН привержены повышению возраста до 18 лет, и в 2002 году Факультативного протокола, касающегося участия детей в вооруженных конфликтах было сделано хорошо-своего рода. Негосударственные партизанские группы запрещены от вербовки лиц моложе 18 лет, в то время как государствам разрешено заручиться добровольцы старше 15 лет. Ребенок-солдат как уголовного аберрации, нарушение правил даже войны, является более или менее 21-го века идея.Но то, что ему не хватает в истории, ребенок-солдат составляет с драматическим пафосом. Будь то Организация помощи, делая шаг по сбору средств или новости якорь, выщипывание чувствах, ничего не передает разврат далекие конфликта довольно как изображение девять летний Курение сигарет и тащил АК-47. Теперь знакомые мемуары, долгий путь прошло (2007), бывшего ребенка-солдата Измаил Би рассказывает о насильственной вербовке в 12, наркотики, принуждение и четырех лет насилия, перед спасения от Организации Объединенных Наций (ЮНИСЕФ). Хотя много фактов в настоящее время оспаривается, Би в истории Сьерра-Леоне помогли создать солдат как архетип несчастье.За последние 20 лет чтобы удалить несовершеннолетних из боя в мире появились неправительственных организаций разного размера. В 1998 году восемь основных human‑rights групп, включая Amnesty International и Human Rights Watch, объединились для формирования коалиции за прекращение использования детей-солдат; четыре года спустя они установили 12 февраля как «Красный рук день» для повышения осведомленности и прекратить использование детей-солдат. Child‑Soldier активность, достиг популярных крещендо с вирусного видео КОНИ 2012 от миссионерской группы невидимые дети, сделал для содействия их кампании к аресту Джозефа Кони, руководитель армии сопротивления Господней угандийских мятежников.Ребенка-солдата, который преследует воображение западных похитили, мозги, наркотики и заставляли совершать зверства, до тех пор, пока вы, западных доноров, сделать что-то остановить трагедии.Войны, как он сказал, это ад, и не война когда-либо освобождены детей, либо в качестве жертв или комбатантов. Наши недавние внимание на практику использования детей-солдат, меньше об изменениях в характере современного боя и больше делать с глобализирующемся идеал детства как защищенная период развития. Хелен Броклхёрст, преподаватель международных отношений в Университете Суонси в Уэльсе, пишет в своем эссе «детство в конфликт: можно реального ребенка солдат пожалуйста Stand Up?' (2009), появление слова «солдат» 'отмечает точку, в которой концепция общества детства стала несоизмеримыми когда использована для своей концепции войны'. Как так случилось, мы достигли этой точки прямо вокруг коммунизм победил капитализм время и конец истории теоретики радостно объявил там нет войны остались бороться. Остается лишь умиротворения, чтобы очистить сумасшедший или зло групп, которые отказываются получить с программой.Таким образом ребенок-солдат приходит стоять для всех незаконных вооруженных групп, чьи мотивы всегда иррациональное – как те детей-солдат. Их борьба является ошибочной ответ на травмы, или в результате культ стиль программирования, или вынуждены под угрозой применения насилия от маниакальное силачей. Дети-солдаты являются как жертв, так и виновных, так же, как все non‑state комбатантов являются жертвами их собственных глупо непримиримости. В эпоху либеральной демократии и ненасильственного сопротивления все повстанцев как неестественное подростков лейтенантом. И так как я могу найти не исторический рекорд народного восстания, которые не включают подростков (в том числе в Америке), любой народной революции является де-факто нарушением международного права. После того, как милиции нигде в мире обвиняется в использовании детей-солдат, Запад самостоятельно авторизованного вмешаться и восстановить порядок. Кони 2012 была хорошая шутка Интернет, но это также привело к конгрессменам как дома, так и сторон, призывающих к увеличению присутствия США в Центральной Африке.The use of children in combat may be historically uncommon, but it wasn’t illegal or surprising that adolescents went to war. We know this in part because we’ve kept past ‘child soldiers’ alive in history and legend. In his book Reimagining Child Soldiers in International Law and Policy (2012), Mark A Drumbl cites just a few examples: Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general and the author of On War (1832), joined the Prussian army at 12; Alexander the Great became regent and quelled a Thracian rebellion at 16; and Joan of Arc was also a teenager when she petitioned the king for permission to travel with the army to Orleans in 1429. David was even more precocious when he slew Goliath and ascended to the throne. And there were teens at the Boston Tea Party in 1773, while the 17-year-old Samuel Maverick was one of five colonists killed at the Boston Massacre in 1770. Drumbl also includes the civil rights activist Claudette Colvin, who at the age of 15, nine months before Rosa Parks, refused to give up her bus seat. The list goes on, and for all the names we know, there are many more lost to time.В этих рассказах детей и молодежи не признаком, что их причиной был поврежден или неправильно. Напротив вдохновила детей были признаком благосклонности от Бога – или истории. Наличие детей-солдат сегодня сразу depoliticises конфликта и делает вопрос о преступности, но детей-солдат в старой истории войны поднять вопрос о будущем, который является сейчас сказать. Победители в истории может принимать удовольствие в последних боях, они могут разместить себя в шкуре скороспелый солдат детей, потому что они знают, как история заканчивается: либеральные капиталистические демократии, системе национальное государство, ООН. Теперь, когда мы выросли из детей в качестве солдат, мы можем оглянуться на его ласково, как свидетельством дальновидности и мужеству наших предков. Все, что они сделали, в конце концов, получил нас здесь.До тех пор, как они отделены от современной геополитики, рассказы детей солдат, считаются идеально подходит для детей в США. Подумайте о мастере мальчик Гарри Поттер: сирот войны, изъятых из его родственники в возрасте 10 лет, Гарри доводится до уединенных академии, ведении бывших боевиков, сказал он предназначенных для славы и преподавал в борьбе. Когда полководец, кто убил его родителей возвращается к власти играть, подростковой Гарри поднимает и поездов вооруженных кадры его коллег школьники бороться внутренних и внешних врагов. Один из этих детей-солдат погибает в последовавшей битве. После окончания войны, Гарри и его лучший друг Рон, оба все еще подростки, присоединиться к подразделение военной полиции нового правительства. «Они в настоящее время эксперты,» автор романов Джоан Роулинг журналистам в 2007 году, расширить на эпилог ее последняя книга в серии. «Неважно, сколько им лет или что еще они уже сделали». Международный уголовный суд не может согласиться, но они не в привычку преследования победителей.In fictional ‘just war’ scenarios, such as the rise of Voldemort or a communist invasion, Americans are far less conflicted about whether or not children can choose to be guerrillas. Though US territory hasn’t been occupied by a foreign power since the War of 1812, that doesn’t stop us from imagining what we would do if it happened. In the movieRed Dawn (1984), the Soviet Union and its Cuban allies invade and quickly conquer the US. (In the 2012 remake, the invader is North Korea.) The protagonists are a scrappy group of Colorado high-schoolers who take to the hills and mount an offensive against the Ruskies. The Wolverines (named after their school mascot) train and fight and die, but there’s no real question as to whether they should surrender or if they’re too young to take on their responsibilities. At the end of the original movie, a war memorial stands for the Wolverines: ‘In the early days of World War III, guerrillas – mostly children – placed the names of their lost upon this rock. They fought here alone and gave up their lives, so that this nation shall not perish from the earth.’When it comes to the homeland, no international body can tell our teens to stand down.Race is one of the reasons it’s easier for Western media consumers to imagine teenagers as heroes in Colorado or magical Scotland than in Sri Lanka or Colombia. If we’re exposed only to frozen images of these children as objects of sympathy – soft-eyed, mute, sad – it’s harder to put ourselves in their position and imagine what their motivations might be as individuals.The Harry Potter series underestimates the lifelong trauma these children would experience, never mind whether they should be immediately taking jobs as civil servants. International standards would call for them to be demobilised and reintegrated into the civilian population. But at least in Harry Potter or, for that matter, The Hunger Games novels by Suzanne Collins, children get to experience a range of emotions, to make choices and have intentions. Meanwhile, the aid world’s portrayal of pre-demobilisation child soldiers presents them as one-dimensional, not culpable for their actions because of coercion or brainwashing. This flat image serves the interests of aid organisations and the UN General Assembly, but it requires us to ignore the voices of the children themselves.For example, in 2009, UNICEF and Sri Lanka teamed up for a media campaign called ‘Bring Back the Child’ which aimed to discourage underage recruitment, specifically by the rebel group Liberation Tigers of