I found the Pambazuka News Special edition on Women and Trade very useful. I'm teaching a course at the University of Ottawa on gender, development and globalisation, which includes a session on trade and gender. I look forward to the appearance of the French version of this issue on the PZ site, so that I can direct my students to it.

Book Review: Ansell, Nicola. 2005. Children, Youth and Development. London and New York: Routledge.

Nicola Ansell’s ‘Children, Youth and Development’ provides a much-needed critical introduction into young people’s experiences in contexts of poverty, ‘development’ and globalisation. Although 90% of young people under the age of 18 and 85% of 15- to 24-year-olds (p. 1) live in the Third World, Ansell rightly points out that insufficient attention has been paid to the ways in which they experience, and are affected by, global processes. This book is a step towards correcting this imbalance, by offering a comprehensive, but succinct and readable, overview.

It adopts a textbook format, with clear explanations, interspersed with boxes, tables and figures. Each chapter contains bulleted lists of principal themes, key ideas, discussion questions and further resources. The book begins with a definition of key terms, and chapters outlining conceptualisations of childhood and youth, global processes of ‘development’ and globalisation, and cultural contexts at local levels. These chapters maintain a careful balance between young people’s common experiences of age-based discrimination, with recognition of diversity due to gender, disability, ‘race’, class, familial contexts, religion, etc. Ansell also manages to highlight the ways in which young people may experience global processes differently than adults, while situating these within multiple relationships and contexts. Although writing in clear, pedagogic language, Ansell does not ‘dumb down’ complex debates, but highlights critical insights into complex issues. In particular, she contextualises and challenges Western ‘exportation’ of childhood and youth ‘models’, as well as development and globalisation processes, into Third World areas.

Chapters 4 to 6 explore three key areas in which young people interact with global processes: health, education and work. Each chapter provides an overview of different conceptualisations of each theme. Ansell then highlights key issues and debates in each area, as they relate to young people. She offers critical analysis of the ways in which international policies affect young people’s access and choices, with particular attention to effects of structural adjustment policies on social service provision, and international legislation regarding children’s work.

Chapter 7 uses UNICEF’s term “children in especially difficult circumstances” (CEDC) to focus on children in war, those with disabilities, children exploited for labour and commercial sex, street children, children affected by AIDS and children in institutions. This chapter marks a problematic departure from the contextualised and historicised approach adopted in the rest of the book. By mirroring UNICEF’s CEDC framework, Ansell implicitly reinforces labels such as ‘street children’, even while problematising them. This is apparent in her change in terminology: from emphasising ‘young people’ as a broad and diverse group, to specifically focusing on ‘children’ and portraying certain circumstances as inherently ‘difficult’. While other chapters situate young people vis-à-vis broader social processes at micro, meso and macro levels, chapter 7 groups together a vast array of different groups and does not allow enough space to interrogate issues in depth. This leads to some problematic generalisations about categories of young people, which detracts from more nuanced arguments made elsewhere in the book.

Ansell’s concluding chapter returns to her more critical analytical perspective in evaluating issues surrounding rights, participation, activism and power. She historicises and critiques the emergence of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and argues that rights are not ends in and of themselves; improving young people’s lives in the Third World also requires broader structural changes. The chapter also provides a good introduction to the potential and challenges of young people’s participation. It concludes with the necessity of political change, recognising young people as actors, but also the structural challenges they face.

At the beginning of ‘Children, Youth and Development’, Ansell sets out four principles guiding her approach: recognising the diversity of young people in contrast to homogenising discourses; focusing on social contexts in which young people live, rather than exclusively on young people themselves; highlighting the importance of young people not only for the future as ‘human becomings’, but also in the present; and, approaching them as actors in their own lives, rather than “merely objects of development or victims of history” (p. 6). With the exception of the shortcomings in chapter 7, the book achieves these objectives and thus provides a timely overview of the diversity of young people’s experiences in complex ‘development’ and globalisation processes in the Third World.

* Christina Clark is a Commonwealth Scholar at the Department of International Development, Oxford University, where she is currently completing research on the political roles of Congolese young people in Uganda.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

In their recent book, ‘Empowering Children: Children's Rights Education as a Pathway to Citizenship’, R. Brian Howe and Katherine Covell argue that children’s rights education in schools should be promoted as a way of recognising children as citizens. The book traces the rise of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child as a groundbreaking document for children because it legally commits states to protecting and promoting children’s rights. Howe and Covell argue that educating children on their rights not only fulfils these international obligations, but also promotes children’s citizenship. They then assess existing approaches to citizenship education in industrialized countries, find them wanting and propose children’s rights curricula as a way forward. The book concludes with some challenges to implementation of children’s rights education and suggested ways to resolve these.

As Howe and Covell rightly point out, too little of the literature and policy discussions on citizenship consider children. According to the authors, this is because children are perceived as ‘not-yets’ and hence only future citizens rather than as full human beings with rights to citizenship in the present. Empowering Children thus makes an important contribution to thinking about children, education and citizenship. It also provides a strong argument for children’s rights education as a way to empower children as active citizens, based on a perceived causal link between knowledge about rights and the ability to defend these rights: "Education is required to empower citizens so that they may take steps to protect and secure their rights. Through human rights education, citizens are enabled to begin the process of acquiring the knowledge and critical awareness necessary to understand and question oppression and the denial of their rights." (p. 33) However, while making a clear case for children’s rights education as a necessary condition for empowerment, it is not clear whether this is sufficient in and of itself. Unequal power relations and structural constraints may prevent children from realizing their rights, whether they are aware of them or not.

The book could also have been improved by building on the authors’ progressive argument of children as citizens to question the depoliticization of rights and citizenship. Instead, Howe and Covell argue, "A number of children's rights initiatives have shown that teaching children about their rights does not lead to anarchy in the family or school, but has highly beneficial effects." (p. 6) This statement draws on two ‘neutral’ arguments to suggest that child rights education will not undermine the existing order and will be useful to society, rather than promoting their central claim that child rights education is about empowering children. Similarly, the authors argue that rights are necessary as a “protective shield for the defenceless" (p. 8) and a "means for building human dignity or a sense of self-esteem" (p. 33). The portrayal of children as vulnerable, helpless victims with low self-esteem in need of rights may undermine Howe and Covell’s stated view of children as active citizens who inherently have inalienable rights as human beings.

This highlights a central tension in the book between a radical political agenda and the need to convince conservative educational establishments in industrialized countries about the need for child rights education in schools. This tension is played out in chapters covering the problems of current citizenship curricula, the benefits of incorporating child rights education within these curricula and implementation issues. While providing a substantive critique of current citizenship education in schools in industrialized countries, this argument could have been strengthened by greater emphasis on power issues in terms of control over content and transmission of knowledge within schools. For example, Howe and Covell recognize that training for citizenship was one of main reasons for the creation of modern state-sponsored schools systems and compulsory education in industrialized countries, but do not fully explore how curricula, including child rights curricula, will inevitably be shaped by dominant political and social interests. Moreover, they do not question in detail whether schools are the appropriate places for children’s rights education, given the fact that educational institutions in industrialized countries embody and enforce compulsory education and hence children’s obligation to claim their right to education. As a result, their book largely focuses on ways to improve citizenship education by including a child rights component, rather than fundamentally challenging the marginalization of children within educational and political systems.

Empowering Children raises some important issues related to children’s citizenship and makes a strong case for children’s rights education, but only partially fulfils the aims of its title. While children’s rights education is an important step forward, real empowerment also requires addressing power structures that continue to prevent children from being active citizens in their own right.

* 'Empowering Children: Children's Rights Education as a Pathway to Citizenship' (ISBN 0-8020-3857-3) may be ordered from the University of Toronto Press, 5201 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario M3H 5T8; [email protected]

So, June 16th is the Day of the African Child ... What does it mean? For most African young people, the Day of the African Child does not mean a whole lot. Many will continue their daily lives -- working in fields and factories, caring for younger siblings or older relatives, begging on the streets of sprawling urban centres, fighting in armed groups and militias, tending sheep and cattle, selling their wares and services in markets and on the streets - without even knowing that June 16th is different from any other.

Those who are aware of the Day of the African Child are likely to be enrolled in some kind of formal education, or 'mobilised' for activities by NGOs, UN agencies and governments. For these young people, the Day of the African Child may be simply that - one day in which they are told something about children's rights that contrasts with the other 364 days of the year during which they are ignored or silenced. Other African young people would not consider themselves to be children. In many traditional African societies, puberty is a biological change that has social implications: after puberty, one is no longer treated as a child, although one may not have full status within social hierarchies based on age and sex.

For many civil society organisations, the Day of the African Child has become a celebration of the entry into force of the African Charter of the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC). The ACRWC, together with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), provide a comprehensive framework for protecting and promoting children's social, economic and political rights. Many civil society organisations thus use June 16th as a day to reflect on the progress made towards the institutionalisation of child rights in law and to call for greater implementation of these legal standards.

For many African governments, June 16th provides a platform for self-aggrandizement. Government leaders often highlight the progress they have made towards upholding and implementing their international and domestic commitments towards children and make more promises about what they will do in the future. This means that the Day of the African Child ensures that children's issues are on the political agenda - for at least one day a year.

In other words, the Day of the African Child is primarily a day for adults, in various capacities and with a variety of motivations. Apart from a few tokenistic children's voices (often under the guise of 'participation'), the overwhelming chorus of speeches, television and radio appearances, and written words (including this commentary) will come from adults. The marginalisation of children's voices is particularly ironic and unfortunate since the day was initially introduced to commemorate a 1976 march by black students in Soweto, South Africa to protest the inferior quality of their education and to demand the right to be taught in their own language. The Organisation of African Unity (now the African Union) in 1991 declared June 16th a day to remember the hundreds of students, who were gunned down, killed and wounded, during the march and subsequent protests. The fact that a day ostensibly for commemorating children's political action is dominated by adults reflects a broader marginalisation of children in the struggle for social justice.

Who cares?

Since the Day of the African Child is largely dominated by adults, why should we care about it at all? Responses to this question often refer to the importance of children as the future generations and/or pull on heartstrings by listing a litany of the ways in which children are victimised. These common refrains again reflect an adult-centric approach to children as semi-human beings: only important in terms of their future contribution to societies, or as victims in the present.

This is why the question about who cares becomes so important. The focus here is not on the 'who cares?' throw-away question in response to issues that are deemed unimportant, but rather who cares in terms of who is best placed to understand and articulate children's issues. Viewed in this way, the answer clearly appears to be: "Children, of course!" Once children are recognised as active economic and social members of families, communities and societies, it is much more difficult to justify their current political marginalisation not only from children's issues, but also from broader social justice issues. In other words, we need to refocus our attention on the reason why the Day of the African Child was initiated in the first place - to commemorate political action by African young people in their struggle against oppression.

Young people's roles in the struggle for social justice

Since the entry into force of the ACRWC and CRC, children's rights advocates across Africa and globally have worked tirelessly to introduce the language of rights around children's issues. However, while claims around children's rights are a necessary component in the struggle for social justice, they are not sufficient in and of themselves. Since social justice is broader than human rights, we need to complement the work done on promoting and protecting children's rights by recognising children as citizens and actors in building just societies. While young people have important roles to play in the struggle for social justice - as economic and social actors who directly confront such issues, and as political actors with views on their own situation - civil society organisations rarely address children's issues, concerns and opinions.

* In order to increase the priority of children's issues, Fahamu intends to develop training materials for a distance-learning course highlighting the roles of children in social justice for partner organisations in Africa. This initiative is intended to complement existing child rights courses by approaching children's issues from a different perspective. It will start from the philosophy that children are first and foremost human beings, and thus must be recognised as active members of their communities and societies. Taking social justice as the end goal, it will show how children's roles must be integral in working towards this goal because of children's often unequal positions within hierarchical power relations that tend to marginalise their views and make them more vulnerable to particular abuses. We hope that this initiative will help us to move from generating more adult-centric rhetoric on a 'Day of the African Child' to recognising and promoting young people's daily roles in the struggle for social justice in Africa.

* Christina Clark is Commonwealth Scholar, Oxford University and a volunteer with Fahamu. She is currently coordinating a consultation process on Fahamu's proposed initiative on young people in the struggle for social justice. For more information on the initiative and/or a detailed concept paper, please contact her on: [email protected].

* Please send further comments to [email protected]

CHRISTINA CLARK argues that in order to fulfil the protection promises made under international legal instruments, UNHCR and the Government of Uganda should allow refugees freedom of movement and the choice to live where they feel most secure – whether in rural settlements, or urban centres.

UN agencies, NGOs and international legal documents often refer to unaccompanied young people displaced by conflict as “the most vulnerable category of an already vulnerable population". As such, they are often deemed to be in need of ‘special protection’. While assumptions of vulnerability should not necessarily be accepted at face value, it is the responsibility of refugee-hosting governments and the international community to fulfil their international protection commitments. However, unaccompanied Congolese young people in different refugee contexts in Uganda consistently report inadequate protection and assistance.

The Ugandan government’s refugee policy, condoned and upheld by the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), is that refugees must be in designated rural refugee settlements in order to receive protection and assistance. This policy is based on administrative ease and the belief that refugees inherently pose security threats, rather than on the best interests or wishes of refugees themselves.

Upon arrival in a settlement, refugees are allocated a plot of land, some basic hand farming tools, initial food rations and domestic items. They are then told to construct their own mud hut and begin to farm for food. As part of the government’s self-reliance strategy, refugees’ rations are cut each month to encourage self-sufficiency in food. Refugees who decide for a variety of reasons to live outside of designated rural settlements are deemed ‘illegal aliens’ and subject to punitive action by Ugandan authorities. Some refugees in Kampala have been given exceptional leave to remain in the city, if they can prove their ability to sustain themselves or their families. This means that the legality of refugees' status in Kampala is based on an arbitrary determination of socio-economic status, rather than principles of freedom of movement or other rights.

Unaccompanied minors (UM) are designated as a particularly vulnerable category of refugees by the Ugandan government, UNHCR and NGOs. As such, they are fast-tracked through the refugee determination system and sent to rural settlements as soon as possible. Those who decide to remain in Kampala or ‘self-settle’ in border areas are left to their own devices.

UNHCR will not assist UM outside of settlements, even if they have very good reasons for choosing to live elsewhere (such as, psychological grief associated with massacres in camps and better employment prospects in the city). Seemingly because of fear of territoriality and turf wars, international organisations are also reluctant to get involved. Local organisations that help ‘vulnerable’ Ugandan young people, such as street children and girl mothers, do not feel they can provide assistance to refugee UM. Many think that specialised refugee organisations are/should be taking care of these children/young people.

This means that UM in Kampala often provide for themselves and their younger siblings, while some rely on adults, often Congolese refugees, to provide shelter. While many of the latter are described by the young people as ‘good people’ and in some cases young people congregate around such figures, even when they live elsewhere, there is a huge potential for economic and sexual exploitation. For example, one of my key informants had been taken in by a Congolese family and slept in the living room with about 10 other people. She was subject to unsolicited sexual advances by an adult member of the family and was afraid of being raped. When I reported her protection issues to UNHCR, the protection officer replied that UNHCR could not intervene because the young women had refused to go to a refugee settlement.

However, once UM arrive in refugee settlements, many feel that assistance and protection are no more than empty promises. Like other refugees, they are required to become self-sufficient, farming for food even if they have come from urban, pastoralist or fishing backgrounds. All of the over 100 young people I interviewed in Kyaka II refugee settlement in western Uganda reported that they had never received a visit from government and UNHCR staff. As a 16-year-old unaccompanied male said: "Those people there have no pity for refugees. Even when I came here, I was in very bad condition. They gave me the forest and told me to farm. If I hadn't found the family I am staying with, I don't know what would have happened."

A community services officer admitted that the three staff members allocated for follow-up on ‘vulnerable’ populations were inadequate for Kyaka II settlement, with a population of approximately 10,000 people spread out over hilly terrain. Refugee young people are also disappointed with the poor medical care and lack of educational facilities in the settlement. As one young man who had been living informally in the border area of Bundibugyo before being convinced to come to the settlement said, "When I arrived, I saw life was worse."

In order to fulfil the protection promises made under international legal instruments, UNHCR and the Government of Uganda should allow unaccompanied young people, as well as other refugees, freedom of movement and the choice to live where they feel most secure – whether in rural settlements, or urban centres. This would also contribute to their ability to provide for themselves, consistent with the self-reliance strategy. Unaccompanied refugee young people will also be better protected if they have more direct access to decision-making fora in which they can make their concerns heard. As one young woman eloquently argued, "Even if there isn't material assistance, at least they could talk to us. But they don't want to see us. They ignore people and make them wait for days. Sometimes we see that we are like animals. But, they should be treating us like people."

* Christina Clark is a Commonwealth Scholar at the Refugee Studies Centre, Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University. She also volunteers with Fahamu. This article is based on 7 months’ field research in Uganda for her doctoral thesis on the political roles of displaced Congolese young people in Uganda.

* Please send comments to

“Ntoroko is like some forgotten world. Our health unit is very poor, our roads are very poor and so are community members are very poor.”
- 22-year-old Ugandan male, Ntoroko West, 28 October 2004

Ntoroko County in Bundibugyo District lies in the far west of Uganda, bordering Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Not only is Ntoroko geographically remote, wedged between Semuliki national park and Lake Albert, but, as the young person above eloquently pointed out, it is also politically marginalised from district and central government decision-making and resource allocation. Following years of conflict between the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) and the Ugandan government, as well as among armed groups in DRC, Ntoroko County has experienced widespread displacement and poverty.

It is within this context of scarcity that the Refugee Law Project, funded by Save the Children, undertook research to identify the main issues affecting children in the county, to assess community responses to date and to analyse gaps in policy and programming. Using participatory, qualitative methods, a team of six researchers gathered data from refugee and national adults and children in Kanara, Rwebisengo and Karagutu sub-counties. The aim was to understand the general context for children, as well as the specific challenges and circumstances of refugee children, including unaccompanied minors, from the DRC.

Ugandan government policy requires refugees to register and proceed to rural settlements. However, many Congolese refugees in Ntoroko County have chosen not to move to Kyaka II refugee camp, 200 kilometres away, because doing so would mean abandoning their cattle, losing their livelihoods as fishers and/or reducing their ability to monitor the situation in their home communities with a view to eventual return. Although they fulfil the criteria under international refugee law, these Congolese people are denied refugee status and deemed ‘aliens’ by the government. As a result, they constitute an ‘invisible’, albeit in some areas majority, part of the population in Ntoroko County. This means that they are not taken into account in government planning for service provision, resulting in increased demand on already over-stretched education and health facilities. Such a policy indirectly penalises Ugandan residents in the area, provoking discrimination against refugees in service provision.

In such an environment of competition for resources and power, children are often left out of the equation. As one resident pointed out: “Our children are completely at risk here because in Ntoroko, as in the traditions of most fish sites, the formula is every man for himself and God for us all. How can you then say children are well here?” Children and young people lack access to decision-making and leaders are not necessarily accountable to those they purportedly represent. The majority of officials dealing with children’s issues are older males, while Ugandan nationals often speak on behalf of refugees. Allegations of corruption are also widespread. For example, one interviewee said: “We normally see a number of things coming here, but they are taken to the chairman’s home. These leaders also sell the things like books which are brought for the children to use at school.”

Given this political situation, it is not surprising that research findings reveal major barriers to accessing quality education for children in Ntoroko County, particularly for girls and Congolese children. Malaria, cough, worms and cholera are the main health issues facing children, due primarily to poor sanitation and lack of access to clean water. Child abuse, neglect, rape and defilement are widespread in the county, but response from local authorities has been inadequate, contributing to a culture of impunity.

Recognising that children are active members of communities means that child protection is inextricably linked to governance issues in Ntoroko County. Only when the child rights agenda is politicised – when power dynamics in social structures are recognised and steps are taken towards inclusion of groups traditionally marginalised from power – will we begin to address the root causes of child abuse and neglect in Ntoroko County, and elsewhere.

* Christina Clark is Commonwealth Scholar, Oxford University. She is currently undertaking doctoral research with Congolese young people in Uganda. The research summarised here was undertaken in her voluntary capacity as Research Associate with Refugee Law Project, Makerere University. The full report is available at:

* Please send comments to [email protected]

Since the 1990s, increasing attention has been drawn to child soldiering in Africa. While greater awareness is important in responding to the use of children as soldiers, popular images have too often sensationalized the issue, with counter-productive consequences. Ubiquitous media images of boys with guns as the epitome of child soldiering and girl sex slaves as 'victims' of conflict obscure the fact that many other children and young people, both male and female, play a variety of different, and often simultaneous, roles in conflict.

In recognition of these multiple roles, and concerned that some of the less visible child soldiers were being ignored and hence overlooked in demobilisation programmes, a group of agencies working with children in conflict met in Cape Town in 1997 to establish a working definition:

"A child soldier is any person under 18 years of age who is part of any kind of regular or irregular armed force or armed group in any capacity, including but not limited to cooks, porters, messengers, and those accompanying such groups, other than purely as family members."

By casting the net wide, this definition challenges the predominant narrow conceptualisation of child soldiers and takes into account less visible roles, often played by girls and young women. In order to adequately 'see' both girls and boys in fighting forces, we need to sharpen our insight into differential patterns of recruitment, experiences in conflict and demobilisation in different contexts, taking into account factors such as sex, age, ethnicity and socio-economic status.

Recruitment

While it is often assumed that children are forcibly recruited into armed forces and groups, conscription, abduction and gang-pressing of children are relatively rare, although highest in Africa. Despite the ambiguity of 'voluntary' recruitment in contexts of severely constrained choices, we must seek to understand the complex rationale in young people's decision to join out of ideological commitment, self-defence, economic survival or increased opportunities.

In eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, for example, ethnic dimensions of the conflict and deliberate targeting of civilians have provoked military reaction by young people to defend their communities and/or avenge deaths. Viewing defence as a collective responsibility for communities in conflict areas, boys and young men have historically joined local militias and defence units, such as the gardiens de la paix in Burundi.

In the face of widespread sexual violence and gender inequality, girls in different contexts have joined armed forces and groups seeking protection or social mobility. Finally, both male and female children and young people have seen armed forces and groups as one of the only means of employment, and hence survival, in contexts of widespread socio-economic deprivation.

Roles and experiences

Monolithic stereotypes of boys with guns and girls as 'simply' 'bush wives', 'sex slaves' or 'camp followers' belie the multiple roles and experiences of young people in fighting forces. While girls have historically played support roles within armed forces and groups, acting as domestic workers, cooks and porters, many others actively engage in hostilities as combatants, suicide bombers and commanders.

For example, the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) has a women's auxiliary corps, in which many girls have participated. Children may also act as spies, undertaking fact-finding and reconnaissance missions because they are less conspicuous and therefore less likely to be regarded with suspicion. These roles are not mutually exclusive; in many contexts, children undertake both combatant, as well as non-combatant reproductive and productive labour. For example, Mazurana and McKay (2004) report that girls in Angola were often simultaneously fighters and 'wives'.

Although child soldiers - both boys and girls - are often more at risk of sexual abuse and exploitation than their adult counterparts (Alfredson 2001), it should not be assumed that all children and young people have had these experiences. As Brett (2002) argues, to do so is to deny their individual experiences, treat them as actual or potential sexual objects and contribute to their further stigmatisation and discrimination.

Demobilisation and reintegration

In many situations, the erroneous equation of 'child soldier' with 'combatant' has meant that children and young people playing less visible roles in armed forces and groups have been neglected in disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) programmes. For example, in March 2000, the UN Security Council noted that the DDR process in Angola had inadvertently excluded some children, particularly girls, by making the surrender of weapons the criterion for eligibility in the programmes. Some girls and young women face additional barriers to participation in demobilisation programmes, particularly if they have been sexually involved with members of armed forces or groups. These men may consider them their 'wives' or 'property' and block their demobilisation (McConnan and Uppard 2001). The shame of pre-marital sex in many cultures may prevent girls and young women from returning to communities, fearing social stigma and rejection (McKay and Mazurana 2000).

DDR policy and programming also often fail to address the causes, including gendered dimensions, of children's recruitment in the first place. For children and young people who have gained a sense of power and belonging within armed forces and groups, peace may come as a 'disappointment' (Barth 2003), if they are expected to return to traditional roles in hierarchical societies segregated by age and sex (La Fontaine 1985).

Demobilised young people may not stay in their former communities because they have experienced many identity and personal changes. For girls, this may result in gender role discontinuity at all levels of daily life. "Because they changed as a result of their experiences, they challenge traditional roles that they cannot accept, hence the notion of 'troublesome girls' who do not adhere to normal gender roles." (McKay and Mazurana 2004)

Reintegration approaches must therefore involve entire communities, taking into account shifting social, political, economic and gender contexts. This dynamic process entails not only young people adapting to often “disjointed, displaced, reconfigured” communities, but also communities recognising and accepting how girls and boys have changed because of their experiences (McKay and Mazurana 2004).

Towards an alternative approach: Engaging with children as actors in conflict

Moving away from monolithic assumptions about 'boys with guns' and 'girls as sex slaves' requires a recognition of children and young people as actors in the context of conflict. Taking into account the multiplicity of roles and experiences of girls and boys involved in fighting forces means analysing patterns of individual experiences against the backdrop of specific, gendered, localised contexts. In other words, we need to ensure that the general categorization of 'child soldiers' does not essentialize particular groups of children, masking their individual differences. The challenge is to render visible all of the so-called 'invisible soldiers' (Brett and McCallin 1998) - male and female; combatant and non-combatant; in government forces and armed opposition groups - and to seek to understand their experiences as human beings, rather than objectified stereotypes.

* Christina Clark volunteers for Fahamu and is currently undertaking doctoral research on the political roles of displaced young people at the Refugee Studies Centre, University of Oxford. Previously, she was Africa programme coordinator at the Child Soldiers Coalition and has worked in various capacities at the Canadian International Development Agency. Click on the link for references.

* International Youth Day takes place on August 12. Visit for more information.

* Please send comments to [email protected]

In We Did Nothing, veteran journalist Linda Polman draws on her experience in war zones of Haiti, Rwanda, Bosnia and Somalia to expose the shortcomings of international intervention in these contexts. Her thesis is that United Nations (UN) member states, particularly those on the Security Council (SC), privilege national interests over UN goals. This seriously weakens the UN, which is given ambitious mandates at the same time as it is chronically under-funded and under-resourced. While constrained by member states' interests, the UN is often criticised for its failures, as if it were an independently functioning organisation.

According to Polman, this criticism would be better aimed at UN member states, particularly powerful Western countries that push for peacekeeping operations, but then are noticeably under-represented in terms of personnel on the ground. The book also exposes examples of 'Blue Rinsing', in which powerful SC members intervene unilaterally in conflicts, and then call for UN involvement once more difficult and lengthy stages of reconstruction and democracy-building begin. Polman makes a powerful case against such practice in analysing US involvement in Somalia and Haiti, and French intervention in Rwanda.

In an era of UN-bashing, We Did Nothing is a refreshing re-take on the UN's "failings", showing that they are not organisational, but rather a product of structural power plays in international relations. However, by focusing on self interests as the root of the problems of the international community's reaction to conflict, Polman tends to paint all individuals she encounters in conflict zones with the same brush of egocentricity. International staff members are reduced to national stereotypes, while local populations are portrayed as either passive, helpless victims or unscrupulous profiteers and militia.

This dehumanisation overlooks the extraordinary capacity for resilience, coping and collective action that many people display in conflict. Absent from Polman's often cynical accounts of chaos and confusion are examples of how ordinary people - both local and international - go to extraordinary lengths to help each other eke out a daily, 'normal' existence in the face of adversity. While these examples are less sensational than the US military bullies, the quavering UN officials and the local racketeers portrayed in Polman's book, it is only just, not to mention good journalism, to give equal weight to both sides of the story.

* Reviewed by Christina Clark, Fahamu

Amnesty International’s (AI) Combating torture: a manual for action is a comprehensive reference guide for advocates working to prevent and end torture. It begins with an overview of the principal achievements and emerging framework for action against torture since World War II. In-depth case studies of efforts against torture and ill treatment in the Israeli Occupied Territories, Peru, United States, Austria and South Africa provide concrete examples of the challenges and opportunities human rights defenders face. The manual contains a detailed chapter on evolving international legal standards and initiatives to prevent and end torture. Another chapter examines national legislation to prohibit torture and bring perpetrators to account, while the work of international tribunals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia is also covered. Useful sections on torture and ill treatment in institutions such as prisons, schools and mental institutions, as well as in situations of armed conflict highlight the many circumstances in which these abuses should be prevented.

In the context of growing interest in youth participation, child protection organisations are increasingly calling for more input from children and youth themselves. However, this focus on the “voices of youth” is often translated solely into circumscribed forums, such as contests, three-minute interventions at the UN Security Council or a spotlight of fame on a radio broadcast. Too rarely do we get an in-depth glimpse into the thought processes, experiences and opinions of young people caught up in poverty and war. Child Soldier: Fighting for My Life by China Keitetsi provides a different perspective: over 200 pages of reflections on China's early childhood in rural Uganda, her involvement as a child soldier in the National Resistance Movement (NRM, which brought current Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni into power), her eventual flight to Denmark via South Africa and her opinions on past and current political developments in Uganda.

Recent years have witnessed a growing international consensus on the illegality and immorality of recruiting and using children as soldiers. Child protection advocates have worked to strengthen international legal standards, based on an underlying assumption that a child-oriented body of international law will help to counter the culture of impunity surrounding crimes against children. However, international law is not enough; more effective implementation is required to end child soldiering.

International legal standards and child soldiering

The prohibition on all recruitment of children under the age of 15 into both armed forces and armed groups has acquired a customary international law status. It is therefore binding on all armed forces and armed groups regardless of whether the State is a party to specific international treaties, or even if there is no State.

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) allows for prosecution of those who recruit and use child soldiers. The Statute defines as a war crime the recruitment and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15 by any armed force or armed group, in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Moreover, it includes sexual slavery as a crime against humanity. This is important as some child soldiers are also forcibly held and used as sex slaves. The ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed after the entry into force of the Rome Statute, on the territory of, and by nationals of, all State parties.

There is increasing international consensus on the prohibition of conscription or forced recruitment of children under 18. This higher standard is embodied in the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict (Optional Protocol), the International Labour Organisation Convention 182 (ILO 182) and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRWC).

Challenges to implementation

While these legal developments do set important standards of child protection, too often they do not effectively prevent child soldiering, because of inadequate implementation. In the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), for example, all parties to the conflict continue to recruit and use children, some as young as nine, despite a prohibition on under-18 recruitment. What steps can be taken to prevent continued child soldiering in violation of international law?

1. Knowledge of children's rights and/or capacity to assert them

Where children, families and communities are unaware of children's rights, they are not empowered to resist child recruitment. Sensitization and public education are important advocacy and prevention tools. Moreover, child rights training sessions with governments and armed groups will help them to understand their commitments, translating legal treaty provisions into practical terms.

However, social awareness is not enough. Efforts must also be made to address “push” factors for child soldiering, rooted in poverty, militarisation of society and break-down of social structures. These issues go beyond a narrow focus on the legal abolition of child soldiering, to broader development and peace building efforts.

2. Monitoring and reporting

Child recruiters more readily violate international law if they feel they act outside public scrutiny. In response, several initiatives have been undertaken recently to gather data on the recruitment and use of children. Monitoring and reporting are inherently difficult, because of political sensitivities, limited access to affected populations and generalised break-down in infrastructure due to war. While precise figures are often difficult to obtain, trends and patterns can highlight problems and motivate appropriate actions for redress.

In November 2002, the Secretary General produced a list of parties to armed conflict on the Security Council agenda that continue to recruit and use children as soldiers in violation of international obligations. Based on the provisions of Security Council Resolution 1379, the list was limited, but a significant precedent in publicly “naming and shaming” child recruiters. Subsequently, Security Council Resolution 1460 called for on-going monitoring of parties on the list and other groups of concern, as well as proposals for more effective monitoring and reporting within the UN system.

The impact of the weight of national and international public opinion on recruitment behaviour will vary from group to group. At the governmental level, regimes that are heavily dependent on international aid and/or domestic support will likely be more concerned with tarnishing their image, while “rogue states” and strong, repressive regimes may be less susceptible to public pressure. Similarly, non-state armed groups tend to react to public scrutiny of their actions in a way that reflects their ultimate aims. For example, the Rassemblement pour la démocratie-Goma (RCD-Goma) perceives itself as the legitimate authority in eastern DRC. As a “government in waiting”, the RCD-Goma has publicly stated on numerous occasions its intention not to recruit child soldiers, and to cooperate with international agencies in demobilising some child soldiers within its ranks. On the other hand, the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army is intent on fulfilling its interpretation of a higher spiritual calling; therefore, it is less concerned with international and domestic public opinion and regularly commits atrocities against civilian populations, including the abduction and brutalisation of children for military purposes.

3. Accountability

Unless the international community acts upon information obtained through monitoring and reporting, child recruiters will be tempted to limit actions to public relations exercises, without effectively changing the situation on the ground. In the DRC, for example, the government demobilised less than 200 child soldiers in a high profile ceremony, but kept thousands more children within its ranks. The RCD-Goma has tracked demobilised children, re-recruiting them once they have left the safety of rehabilitation centres.

Where clear evidence of child soldiering exists, it is important that perpetrators are brought to account. In Resolution 1460, the UN Security Council endorsed the Secretary General's call for an “era of application” and expressed its intention to “enter into dialogue” with parties guilty of child soldiering “in order to develop clear and time bound actions to end this practice”.

The Special Court for Sierra Leone has set an important precedent by indicting several men accused of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 years into their groups or using them to participate in hostilities, enslavement, pillage, intentionally directing attacks against humanitarian personnel or peacekeepers, unlawful killings, abductions and hostage-taking. Members of the international community have also called for leaders of groups that recruit and use children in the DRC to be declared war criminals and prosecuted by the ICC.

In formal judicial processes, prosecutors only have the capacity to bring to justice those who bear the greatest responsibility for the most serious crimes. It is therefore important that crimes against children are also mainstreamed in parallel reconciliation processes. Truth Commissions in South Africa and Sierra Leone, for example, have specifically addressed violence against and by children. Traditional justice processes, based at the community level within the socio-political sphere governed by village elders and chiefs, should also be conducted in a child-sensitive way. Moreover, traditional cleansing and healing ceremonies in Angola, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Uganda have allowed some communities to recognise and assuage the guilt that child soldiers carry.

In all accountability processes, appropriate and meaningful child participation should be incorporated. This requires careful reflection on the ways in which children have been involved in, and impacted by, conflict. The best interests of the child should be the guiding principle in discussions surrounding juvenile justice for child soldiers accused of war crimes, and participation of child witnesses in formal judicial processes.

Conclusion

Increasing international momentum has led to the criminalization of the recruitment and use of children as soldiers. This legal progress must be matched by practical implementation. This is a multi-step process involving increased community sensitization and public awareness; adequate monitoring and reporting; and accountability processes for child recruiters. The increasingly robust body of international law prohibiting child soldiers is an accomplishment, but not an end in itself. More must be done to translate this rhetoric into reality.

* Christina Clark is Programme Officer for Africa at the Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. This editorial is written in her personal capacity and should not be attributed to the Coalition or its members.

* Please send comments to

* An estimated 1.2 million children - both boys and girls - are trafficked each year into exploitative work in agriculture, mining, factories, armed conflict or commercial sex work. World Day Against Child Labour on June 12 aims to focus attention on trafficking in children to prevent and stop the practice. Visit http://www.ilo.int/public/english/bureau/inf/events/cl2003/index.htm for more information.

* In Soweto South Africa, thousands of black school children took to the streets in 1976 to protest against apartheid education policies. Hundreds were shot down. In the two weeks of protest that followed, more than a hundred people were killed and more than a thousand were injured. To honour the memory of those killed and the courage of all those who marched, the Day of the African Child has been celebrated on 16 June every year since 1991, when it was first initiated by the Organisation of African Unity. The Day also draws attention to the lives of African children today. To find out more about this year's Day of the African Child visit http://www.unicef.org/noteworthy/day-african-child/