I began teaching at my current university in 2006, so I'm happy to celebrate my fifth anniversary here! My research and applied work (political psychology) focus on children and armed conflict, and my attention is directed especially toward these children's resiliency and recovery, international conflict resolution, and peace.
The presence of child soldiers, exploited youth, and scarred adolescents is contrary to the goals of our global peace-seeking governance institutions. These children are under-reported, and under-regarded by the global media too. Until the Lome Accord (1999) to end Sierra Leone's conflict, children were also not a part of reconciliation or peace treaties, even in cases where the adult populations are decimated, and child soldiers used as substitutes for adults. They returned to civilian life, only to find that in the absence of childhood (stolen or lost) and the impossibility of adult roles, they were caught in a no-man's land. Many choose to rejoin child soldierhood, as it represents a way to survive, however briefly. Global media more often portray children as unfortunate victims of war, rather than resilient individuals who know more about peace than many, many adults. In the Lome Accords, they were finally included in the post-conflict planning: parties began by "[R]ecognising the imperative that the children of Sierra Leone, especially those affected by armed conflict, in view of their vulnerability, are entitled to special care and the protection of their inherent right to life, survival and development, in accordance with the provisions of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child" (Preamble, Lome Accord).
Ms. Coomaraswamy's strategy includes several objectives, but here are my two favorites:
-- to make children and armed conflict concerns an integral aspect of peacekeeping and peacebuilding; and
-- to identify new trends and strategies for the protection of children through research.
The first goal is important because 80% of refugee populations are women and children. The second goal is equally important. The more traumatized youth we have in conflict zones, the lower the chances of national integrity, sovereignty, and development. Front-line humanitarian aid workers are beginning to benefit from research conducted by mental health professionals who interview war-affected children, engage them in life-saving therapy, and help them rediscover childhood, go back to school wherever possible, and above all, listen to what they themselves consider to be most important in their lives. (I am a member, for example, of the Washington Network on Children and Armed Conflict, a group of practitioners and scholars devoted to these issues). We know that such things as drawing therapy is helpful to children traumatized by war, particularly when they are too young to verbally articulate their experiences, and we have seen some parallels across trauma situations and across armed conflicts.
These gains are especially poignant as Southern Sudan's recent referendum on independence from Sudan is acknowledged by objective observers to be an open, free and fair process (and as a corresponding spike in armed conflict is experienced yet again in Darfur over the past few weeks). We should be as vigilant about other situations on the horizon: the Nagorno-Karabakh region, a source of potential war (quite soon) between Armenia and Azerbaijan bound to have an ethnic violence element; or the border regions between Cambodia and Thailand, and the Burma-Thailand border, where children are also at risk of violence.
And then there is the receding presence of the US in Afghanistan while they develop domestic sources of peacekeeping, security, and the institutions of government for stability. The status of children's safety is not assured. Radhika Coomaraswamy was there just recently, and notes several causes for concern (reported by IRIN, at
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91869 with the following details). Although the Foreign Minister became a signatory on behalf of Afghanistan on 30 January, outlawing the recruitment of children by the Afghan armed forces, they are used by a variety of groups for various purposes. On the one hand, both the national police force and armed opposition groups like the Taliban are recruiting boys as foot soldiers. The Taliban also recruit boys as suicide bombers. There is disagreement here on the definition of adulthood-- international law defines it as aged 18, while in some places facial hair indicates entry to adulthood. So while in breach of international law, it is possible to say that local definitions of adulthood and childhood affect people of the same age group.
The use of children in armed conflict and the risks to children in this environment is not limited to opposition groups. (Amnesty International USA has a page devoted to frequently asked questions here). US and NATO groups are beginning to train and use local pro-government militia forces as neighborhood watch group equivalents, to build security, trust, and stability. These groups, however, use children, a violation of US law whenever such groups are contracted to meet military objectives. Aside from their recruitment into soldierhood, human rights groups note that these armed forces engage in 'bacha bazi’, the sexual exploitation of young boys (see IRIN's report on this aspect, at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportID=91676).
Big challenges, met by the two goals I cite above. I work hard to contribute to both. I know Radhika Coomaraswamy does. Happy Anniversary to us. May the world change enough so that we can celebrate other types of anniversaries instead.
Posts
