Toys do not always come in a fancy gift wrap: Children of the World, Part B

I am holding a book in my hands by Ishmael Beah, a young Sierra Leonese who currently resides in New York City. If the name of the 26-year old does not sound familiar to you, there is nothing wrong; he is not to be found among the annals of African literature and story-telling tradition along with Soyinka, Achebe or Gordimer, but this makes his book no less important. In fact, it is precisely the hitherto "anonymity" of its author what is the defining element of the book: "A long way gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier" is the story of Beah, a child-soldier in the Sierra Leone Civil War, one of many. Beah's memoir is truly the "voice" of many anonymous child-soldiers from Sierra Leone and abroad who have been trapped in bloody conflicts. It is the book of Beah's brother, Junior, who disappeared one fine day and was never to be seen again, it is the book of his classmates, of his friends, it is the book of other youngsters who could be in his position writing the book, but, sadly, did not "live to tell the tale" [to use the title of Garcia-Marquez's recent novel].

Like flies trapped in a spider web, the children caught by guerrillas (or the government army) are virtually at the mercy of their captors. And yet unlike flies, their death will not be quick and (presumably) painless but, instead, long and brutal. They surrender body and soul, agency and childhood. They get in return the only toy they are allowed to have: a gun boxed in instructions about killing and killing and obeying the superiors. This is because the voracious appetite of the leaders will not be satiated unless the children mutate into obedient recruits capable of satisfying any cause that appears "worthy" to the leaders. Generalized as this description may be, it resonates with the testimonies of several child-soldiers from different countries, Sierra Leone being just one example. A notorious case involves the now-indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) guerrila leader Joseph Kony of Uganda whose group, the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA), has abducted some 20,000 children.

Whether it fits the definition of child labor or not, the truth remains that the brutality and exploitation of children-converted-into-soldiers in combat zones and conflicts is repugnant and intolerable. The "institution" of child-soldiers consists, naturally so, an outright violation of the essence of the major human rights texts like the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (1948) or the "Convention on the Rigths of Children" (1989)- in fact, it is safe to argue that captors of child-soldiers nullify the very notion of human rights, let alone of children rights. Conversely, it needs not be repeated how damaging participating to wars is to children; what must be mentioned though is that even the children that manage somehow to escape or are rescued by the international community even at an early stage -like Ishmael Beah who was saved by UNICEF- need to undergo tremendous treatments in order to recover, to heal and to come in terms with their past.

The 11-year conflict that tore apart Sierra Leone erupted in 1991 with the first expedition of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), a guerrila group who wanted to oust the All People's Congress (APC) government. The conflict ended in 2002, leaving thousands dead and an estimated 2 million people displaced. Statistics of the children-soldiers are harder to tabulate and largely do not make headlines during and even after the conflict ends. However child-soldiers are a distinct reality of warfare today, particularly in Africa, notably in Uganda, DR Congo and Angola, but elsewhere too, as in Colombia and Lebanon. According to Amnesty International some 300,000 children soldiers -close to the population of such capitals as Ljubljana, Slovenia or Canberra, Australia- fight in conflicts today. On the legislation front, progess has been achieved by the entry into force of the "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Children on the involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts" in 2002 although sadly not all countries that are party to it have ratified it. Against the distressing reality and in lieu of any conclusion, I have decided to quote from Amnesty International's website a 15-year old girl, a former child-soldier of Kony's Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda - she tells: "I would like to give you a message. Please do your best to tell the world what is happening to us, the children. So that other children don't have to pass through this violence."

---

Reference: Child Soldiers, Amnesty International

One (more)

In his article today titled "Η φωλιά του κούκου, 2007" republished in his blog , well-respected Greek journalist Michalis Mitsos takes up the question of victims of wars and warfare. Citing the case of Iraq he underscores the disproportionately grand analogy of casualties to dead -particularly when juxtaposed against previous wars- mostly thanks to advances in the medical field.

Meanwhile here in Boston word has come of the death of a young woman in Iraq - one that was not fortunate to make it into the "list of wounded". This morning I grabbed the local edition of "Metro" newspaper before riding the "T" [the name we have for the subway here] only to find its front page dedicated to Marine Captain Jennifer Harris, of "Swampscott, MA". The next page was a report from her funeral which was held at her native Swampscott, -a small community of some 15,000- yesterday, "with full military honors" - as if this would soothe the pain of her family, her fiancé Maj. Christopher Aaby, the community, us reading the newspaper.

Of course her fellow soldiers wanted to honor Jennifer, her life, her service - this was the rationale behind the elaborate funeral. Lt. Gascinski -a roommate of Harris at the Naval Academy- in her speech stressed the "calm demeanor" of Harris whose nickname was "Dove" for this reason.

But that said and done, bottom line is that 28 year old Jennifer is dead: her helicopter went down on February 7. Fate, death, the Sunni group, -how you want to name it- did not take into account her youth or the fact that she was a woman pilot or that this week was her last week in Iraq: she was expected to come home the following week.

Jennifer and every man or woman killed in Iraq or any war: this is the version of Iraq war that rarely makes it to non-US papers. The mere listing of casualties and victims no matter which place it occupies within the newspaper or how it is commented, it can never be compared to that of "the individual dead", the resident of the community, the neighbor, the college classmate.

In a densely-knit community-based America there is one puzzle, one unanswered question which at the same time dwindles support for the war and gives hope to all of us opposing it: "for how long more can people assist to funerals of their loved ones, their fellow citizens?" For Swampscott, Jennifer was not the first one. 20 year old Army Spc. Jared Raymond died just a few months ago in Taji, Iraq, the newspaper tells us, leaving us with this thought in mind - not without a reason I believe.

As numbers of dead and wounded rise, as our expectations from the constituencies in Massachusetts and elsewhere increase, so does our hope that this "war" will be brought -somehow- to an end: for one thing, the newspapers of Iraq, if they were to be printed regularly, they would need an extra budget to dedicate articles to all the casualties, not to say front pages.

But learning from the American experience and the pain and sorrow that such news brings, perhaps is better this way, without articles. It may not honor the memory of those killed, but it does not suck whatever courage has been left to the citizens of Baghdad and all those other cities where a trip to the market has a risk factor greater than swimming in a pool with sharks: an avid diver, my father tells that if you do not move and stay still the shark does not perceive your presence and hence does not attack.

Unfortunately, running or standing still, bombs manage to get you in Baghdad - somehow.


Links

"Metro" newspaper
The town: Swampscott, MA

94

When Hannah Arendt published her pivotal, prototypic and controversial [when juxtaposed against her previous publications] "Eichmann in Jerusalem" in 1963 she argued her famous "banality of evil" thesis - that people committing atrocities need not be inherently bad but may be influenced by an ideology or a set of codes. Because they are good "bureaucrats" they abide by rules, principles and orders thereby committing crimes.

Seeing the atrocities that occur on a daily basis at Iraq -United Nations announced today the death toll for Iraqis to be 34,000 for 2006- I cannot help but question what is that has made "evil" look like a "banality" in the lives [and hence the culture] of a people. Conversely, what sort of "banality" is this, which spurs an almost routinized coverage of Iraq by media and non-media actors, an awfully repetitive sorrow-dominated vocabulary to politicians and officials of any sort and a "yet again" or "not again" [at best] reaction to "innocent, powerless" civilians, if not of "evil"?

A great paradox and virtue of language is this, namely that it allows one to play games with words, to deconstruct phrases and to create wholly new and different meanings based on a word or two. Language can also downplay or increase the importance of virtual anything simply through wise word choice and word ordering. But numbers, are not like that; numbers cannot get dressed up to look "good" or "sloppy", they are destined to carry the naked version of the story - whatever this story maybe.

It so comes that 94 is the number for Iraq. If 34,000 was difficult to comprehend, the fact that this figure translates to 94 people being killed every single day at Iraq may help those not handling easily big figures, myself included. Early on we learn also that metaphors help, as they render our speech or writings clearer. Strikingly painful as it may appear, and it is, 94 dead Iraqis is almost like if a Boeing 737 crashed everyday or if the entire grade six of a 564 elementary school disappeared again and again and again every single day of the calendar year - rain or shine.

It almost causes shame to me the fact that I dared to quantify in this most disgraceful and dishonorable manner human life. And as I am about to delete my previous statement, I decide I will not - I think it does much less justice to victims to refuse to refer to their plight; it is much too hypocritical and shameful to aspire to a Pontius Pilate attitude when we all have some share of responsibility for the atrocities on the Iraqi soil. Unfortunately, few of us have the excuse of "abiding by an ideology" and fewer still are "the good bureaucrats" exercising at our best the civil duties entrusted to us.

That 94 people die everyday at Iraq because of the mess calls, once more, for urgent action. Much advocacy still focuses on "an end to the war". Will that suffice? Most journalists and experts signal otherwise; they talk about a possible splitting of Iraq into three states and they allude to further bloodshed. Even the most optimist would agree that the current state of Iraq is one of utter fragility and instability and that no deus ex machina can bring this tragedy to a bloodless conclusion. Regardless of the course of affairs at Iraq what seems clear is that we, non-Iraqis, are not entitled to any more mistakes, to any more gambling of human lives in our futile attempt to transform "vision" into action. Our duty is to help: may we be fortunate to find ways to assist - not to absolve ourselves from our atrocities, but, simply to decrease suffering. And to lower this damned 94.

References and Links:

in English: Blasts kill at least 70 in Baghdad; U.N. reports 34,000 Iraqis died in '06

en Français: Irak: plus de 100 morts dans des violences, 34.000 civils tués en 2006

an interesting study of Arendt's "banality of evil" in the context of fear is to be found in Corey Robin "Fear: The History of a Political Idea" (Oxford: OUP, 2004).

Killing globally: the untold story of globalization

Gold arches. I-tunes. Mickey Mouse. Yes, you have guessed correctly, McDonalds, I-pod and Disney are all typical examples of the pervasiveness -for better or worse- of globalization. And yet the globalization extends beyond common services and goods; guns can get global too. How? In just about the same way that the average toy of your son travels around the world before it settles in your home, a gun that was produced thousand miles away may kill a little girl in Uganda.

"Weapons and ammunition supplied to the governments of the DRC, Rwanda and Uganda were subsequently distributed to armed groups and militia in the eastern DRC involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity. In addition to committing other crimes, these armed groups systematically and brutally raped and sexually abused tens of thousands of women. Arms dealers, brokers and transporters from many countries including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Israel, Russia, Serbia, South Africa, the UK and the USA were involved in these arms transfers, highlighting once again the key importance of regulating the operations of arms brokers and dealers. By the end of 2005 only about 30 states had laws regulating such brokers."
(Source: Amnesty International 2006 Report on Arms Control)

Ever wondered how global conflicts are fought? How genocide is committed? How on earth do people that have no food to feed themselves find modern technology weapons and bullets? Well, we provide them with. Or sort of. The question of arms trade is a large one and truly global; Whether as producers of weapons (G8 countries, the Balkans) or recipients (Africa and pretty much wherever conflict takes place) or as in-between agents/smugglers, a good number of countries are involved in arms trade and a better number of people make a living by (enabling the) killing (of) others.

Years of campaigning and raising awareness bore fruits today when the United Nations passed a resolution that paves the way for a treaty on arms control; such a treaty would restrict the scope of this lucrative business and the chance that such weapons fell on the hands of guerrillas or terrorists. We would be talking of a milestone day today, had there not been one country, the United States, opposing such an effort: of the 192 countries members of the world, 153 voted in favor of the resolution, 24 countries abstained -mostly gun trading countries- and yes, the United States opposed it.

Fighting the war against terrorism while providing terrorists with weapons: Are we missing something here or is it just me?

-----

On the UN resolution:

In english:
UN seeks new treaty restricting global arms
En français:
L'ONU ouvre la voie à un traité réglementant le commerce des armes