Sierra Leone
Today in class, we learnt about the post-civil war resolution of conflict in Sierra Leone. I'm not sure if you all know much about that country, except that it's always next to Singapore when we fill up the form in those online lists to select our country.
The conflict in Sierra Leone was started in 1991 by a group called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). At first the RUF claimed that their revolution was a protest of corruption in the government, but the war later degenerated into one based on greed. The RUF seized control of Sierra Leone's diamond mines. To keep control over the mines and to expand their power base, they created child soldiers. They took children as young as six from the arms of parents, killing the parents if necessary. They starved the children. To quell their intense hunger, children would accept drugs: a mixture of cocaine and gunpowder, amphetamines, others. And dependent on those drugs, children would learn to kill.
The militia were smart. They knew what they were doing. They knew to break the bonds between children and their villages. They would assign children to kill someone from their own village, so the child couldn't return because they feared revenge. They knew how a slippery slope into murder was easier than a direct path. They trained children first to kill animals, and to drink their blood. They encouraged this to be a competition; for there to be dehumanisation. In the voice of a child soldier: When a commander slit the throat of a prisoner, everyone would want to follow him. This wish to follow would also occur when the commander practiced cannibalism. Some prided themselves on being effective killers, and children were always the most enthusiastic to be in the front line. Those children never had a chance to fully develop moral systems based on pacifism.
I wondered perhaps, if there could exist a person who joined the RUF genuinely because they wished to protest corruption. Then perhaps they would realise that the focus of the RUF had changed. They would still be in the RUF, though in the lower ranks, where they mightn't have the deciding power. Perhaps they would feel there was something wrong about using child soldiers, but they wouldn't protest. After all, the RUF had control over the diamonds. The child soldiers, and other measures, were necessary for this. Besides, the government and other groups were resorting to using child soldiers too. Shouldn't they just consider themselves lucky to be on the 'right' side, with the power?
There are some people, born and caught in a situation like that, who would say, "Well, these are the circumstances now. It's not practical to protest or I'd just get myself killed like a fool. And I never wished for this in the first place, so what can I be obliged to do?"
Perhaps the right answer to that would be this: Do you hope for something better? Do you hope for someone to led you out of this mess, to a better world? If you don't dare to dream, or you dream and you don't dare to do anything, then you have no right to hope for that better world. Because you're essentially telling everyone else that the right choice in your eyes, the one you have personally endorsed, is to stay dormant and keep your head low and comply.
I can imagine though, many who would choose to keep their heads low even though they wanted to do something about it, because they faced the relatively unselfish prospect of staying alive to look after their families, not just to protect themselves. Maybe they would be practical, because nothing stays the same forever - surely change will come someday, from someone else, and then they'd be the smart ones left over to celebrate. The dead can't celebrate anything.
But at the very least, although they may survive with their pathetic and magnificent humanity, although they may survive to breathe and live and love another day, they don't have a right to hope for change. They can hope nonetheless, in spite of their right to hope, but they will hope with guilt in their hearts because they have been saved by someone better than them.
The conflict in Sierra Leone was started in 1991 by a group called the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). At first the RUF claimed that their revolution was a protest of corruption in the government, but the war later degenerated into one based on greed. The RUF seized control of Sierra Leone's diamond mines. To keep control over the mines and to expand their power base, they created child soldiers. They took children as young as six from the arms of parents, killing the parents if necessary. They starved the children. To quell their intense hunger, children would accept drugs: a mixture of cocaine and gunpowder, amphetamines, others. And dependent on those drugs, children would learn to kill.
The militia were smart. They knew what they were doing. They knew to break the bonds between children and their villages. They would assign children to kill someone from their own village, so the child couldn't return because they feared revenge. They knew how a slippery slope into murder was easier than a direct path. They trained children first to kill animals, and to drink their blood. They encouraged this to be a competition; for there to be dehumanisation. In the voice of a child soldier: When a commander slit the throat of a prisoner, everyone would want to follow him. This wish to follow would also occur when the commander practiced cannibalism. Some prided themselves on being effective killers, and children were always the most enthusiastic to be in the front line. Those children never had a chance to fully develop moral systems based on pacifism.
I wondered perhaps, if there could exist a person who joined the RUF genuinely because they wished to protest corruption. Then perhaps they would realise that the focus of the RUF had changed. They would still be in the RUF, though in the lower ranks, where they mightn't have the deciding power. Perhaps they would feel there was something wrong about using child soldiers, but they wouldn't protest. After all, the RUF had control over the diamonds. The child soldiers, and other measures, were necessary for this. Besides, the government and other groups were resorting to using child soldiers too. Shouldn't they just consider themselves lucky to be on the 'right' side, with the power?
There are some people, born and caught in a situation like that, who would say, "Well, these are the circumstances now. It's not practical to protest or I'd just get myself killed like a fool. And I never wished for this in the first place, so what can I be obliged to do?"
Perhaps the right answer to that would be this: Do you hope for something better? Do you hope for someone to led you out of this mess, to a better world? If you don't dare to dream, or you dream and you don't dare to do anything, then you have no right to hope for that better world. Because you're essentially telling everyone else that the right choice in your eyes, the one you have personally endorsed, is to stay dormant and keep your head low and comply.
I can imagine though, many who would choose to keep their heads low even though they wanted to do something about it, because they faced the relatively unselfish prospect of staying alive to look after their families, not just to protect themselves. Maybe they would be practical, because nothing stays the same forever - surely change will come someday, from someone else, and then they'd be the smart ones left over to celebrate. The dead can't celebrate anything.
But at the very least, although they may survive with their pathetic and magnificent humanity, although they may survive to breathe and live and love another day, they don't have a right to hope for change. They can hope nonetheless, in spite of their right to hope, but they will hope with guilt in their hearts because they have been saved by someone better than them.
Labels: child soldiers, negotiation and international conflict
Post a Comment